Archive for miscellaneous
Eaten Alive By Regulation: Innovation Fatigue and Fish Therapy
Posted by: | Comments“This is something that is dangerous and clearly unsanitary,” warned New York senator Jeffrey Klein in October 2009. “Once we shed light on this dirty little process, more people will avoid it and we can ban it.” The terrifying menace that so worried the good state senator and led him to introduce legislation to ban it is a natural therapy that has been used successfully for 400 years to treat the skin of feet. 400 years of successful, healthy treatments in the form of fish pedicures. In the US, though, the process is very foreign and has a certain squirm factor to it. Small fish that nibble at dead skin are a relatively common treatment offered in several parts of Asia, but in the West, worried officials have been applying or creating various regulations to fight against the invasion of new options for beauty care, one of many highly regulated business areas where innovation fatigue often comes from the burdensome and sometimes unpredictable applications of regulation.
In the US, approximately 15 states have banned fish pedicures. Some regulators say that they require tools used for pedicures to be completely sterilized after each treatment, which would mean, of course, frying the little critters after they’ve nibbled on your feet. An expensive proposition for business owners. Several people wishing to bring this new service to their community invested heavily in the systems needed for safe, clean tanks and fish, only to have new regulations added that would single out their business and ban it.
Can’t people make their own decisions about where they stick their feet, or how they deal with their bunions? If someone wants to use a natural method that has 400 years of successful history, do we really have to tell them that they aren’t allowed to for their own good? Sure, there are risks, perhaps similar to the risk of putting one’s feet into the water at a beach or swimming pool. But regulators protecting the public from themselves with unnecessary layers of regulation and bureaucracy represent one of the most difficult and painful forms of innovation fatigue. Someday we need to allow business and innovation to flourish and just get out of the way.
Yes, I recently tried fish therapy and found it to be remarkably refreshing and effective. The fish–I think these were Chinese chin chin fish, though Middle Eastern doctor fish are most commonly used–just nibble at dead skin and leave the healthy live skin alone, so they don’t cause bleeding or irritation. It’s hard to see how this could be any more dangerous or terrifying that placing one’s foot in a lake, a stream, or swimming pool, with the exception that there are 100% organic fish like to tickle your feet. I hope to try this again.
It’s Worse Than I Thought: Update on Invisible Innovation in China and Taiwan
Posted by: | CommentsIn my recent post, “Invisible Innovation: The Blindness of the West to China’s Innovation Story,” I lamented the failure of the Thompson Reuters list of 100 top global innovators to include anything from China (and Taiwan). In that post, I erred in stating that Foxconn’s 700+ US patents in the 2005-2010 time period for the TR study was greater than some of the companies that made the list. The error is that I should also have added Foxconn’s patent company to the search. By searching for “Hon Hai Precision” or Foxconn, I now see that we’re dealing with a company has over 5800 patents, more than three times as many as Apple in the same time period. What this means is that I was wrong in saying that Foxconn has more patents than SOME of the companies in the list–they actually have more than MOST of the companies on the list. The invisibility problem I discussed is even worse than I thought when such a mammoth patent estate escapes notice.
So how was Hon Hai/Foxconn overlooked, when they have more international IP activity than Apple and most of the companies listed? How is that possible, when their innovations are a major part of the Apple success story, and when they are the world’s largest maker of electronics? An electronic cloak of invisibility seems to have covered Foxconn and other Chinese or Taiwanese companies, making Chinese innovation largely invisible to the West. It’s time to take the cloak off.
On Sept. 16, President Obama signed the Leahy-Smith “America Invents Act” which supposedly will strengthen innovation and improve our patent system. It’s a radical change in our patent system–one that seems to have been drafted by people who don’t fully understand patents or innovation.
Does this bill promote innovation as advertized? What about that 15% rate hike for patent fees–a new 15% tax on the IP that entrepreneurs need. That’s the most immediate and obvious change. Guess which way that increased burden tilts the balance? Economics 101 suggests that making innovation more expensive is not likely to make it more abundant. But Congress may know better.
Congress apparently recognizes that we have a problem with the patent system, where huge backlogs exist that cause enormous delay and expense for inventors. The backlog and efficiency problem they are allegedly fixing, however, does not require all the unintended consequences of revising patent law but simply improving the administration of the PTO. For example, if Congress would refrain from siphoning off many millions of dollars of PTO funds each year, effectively taxing innovation and crushing the ability of the PTO to properly staff itself and keep its systems up to date, then the backlog could be easily resolved, in my opinion. Unfortunately, we seem to have another case of politicians proposing costly solutions that won’t solve the costly problems that they caused. As long as Congress can redirect funds received by the PTO, the administrative problems at the PTO will not be resolved by changes in patent law. (See “Patent Reform–A Tax on Innovation?” and “Let the Patent Office Keep Its Money.“)
While probably not solving the problems it allegedly fixes, the America Invents Act clearly raises a host of new problems that may lead to unpredictable results in costly litigation for years to come. The radical changes involving who gets patents and what is prior art use confusing language that strips the bill of the “certainty” that its proponents allegedly sought to restore in the system. See excellent reviews of the controversies in these sources:
- Joshua D. Sarnoff, “Derivation and Prior Art Problems with the New Patent Act,” 2011 Patently-O Patent Law Journal, http://www.patentlyo.com/files/sarnoff.2011.derivation.pdf.
- Eric Guttag, “Some More Heretical Thoughts on Strategies for Coping with First to File Under the America Invents Act,” IPWathdog.com, Oct. 5, 2011.
- Gene Quinn, “Prior Art Under America Invents: The USPTO Explains First to File,” IPWathdog.com, Oct. 4, 2011.
Harold C. Wegner of the respect form Foley and Lardner has published an analysis of the law (3rd edition, Sept. 29, 2011) which highlights its pervasive ambiguity due to poor drafting. This is a serious issue which will cloud patent law and hinder the quest for patent rights for years to come. Wegner also rules that the new law may increase backlogs because appeal judges will have to continue dealing with their heavy load of existing cases as well as take on added cases of “post-grant reviews” and other new administrative procedures (supplemental examination and transitional examination of business method patents) which are provided in the new law. The backlog is sure to increase and fees will be raised even more to cope. Meanwhile, the new post-grant review process has “dractonian” elements, as Wegner observes, that may further impede the ability of an inventor with a real invention to obtain a patent. Further, there are numerous details Wegner identifies in his 177-page text showing potential harm to “upstream” entities like universities and small inventors while benefiting those downstream entities that want to use the innovations of others for their business as cheaply as possible. I smell innovation fatigue.
In my view, the bill reflects fundamental ignorance about the nature of invention. The perplexing provisions on prior art highlight this. Years of litigation that will be needed to clarify what on earth is meant by the new prior art provisions as patent professionals already express exasperation over issues of derivation, inventorship, and prior art in the new law.
A crucial part of the ignorance here is on the nature of invention itself, amplifying the confusion created by the judiciary regarding what is patentable. Viewing business methods and software as somehow being non-technical, in spite of typically involving highly technical systems and tools, opens many cans of worms. If something is novel, useful, and non-obvious, why should it not be patentable if it involves computers and electronic data? But the judicial backlash against vaguely defined “business method patents” has been institutionalized in this new law, where business method patents dealing with the financial services industry (thank you, Wall Street lobbyists) have been given special treatment, allowing Wall Street to have a special route to invalidate patents that otherwise have survived basic prosecution, reexamination, and prior litigation. Section 18 of the law describes how those being sued by a “covered business method patent” can have a special hearing to invalidate the patent. That section includes this gem to define that key term:
(d) DEFINITION.–
(1) IN GENERAL.–For purposes of this section, the term “covered business method patent” means a patent that claims a method or corresponding apparatus for performing data processing or other operations used in the practice, administration, or management of a financial product or service, except that the term does not include patents for technological inventions.
(2) REGULATIONS.–To assist in implementing the transitional proceeding authorized by this subsection, the Director shall issue regulations for determining whether a patent is for a technological invention.
The drafters of this law apparently view “business method” inventions as distinct from “technological inventions.” If science were to rule, it would be clear that one cannot clearly distinguish between “technological inventions” and a claim involving data processing or management of a financial product or service when technology is involved. Why is a new use of a computer to advance financial services not “technological”? Why is it a less worthy invention than a new use of a polymer or of amide chemistry or of coherent photons? This probably relates to the non-scientific but widely held view among judges and politicians that information, data, and electronic signals are somehow not part of the physical universe and should be viewed as abstractions rather than concrete entities that relate to physical measures such as entropy and require tangible matter and real energy to manipulate. Note that “technological” is undefined, perhaps because it cannot reasonably be defined in this unreasonable provision of an fatigue-generating law. I wish the best of luck to the Director of the PTO in clarifying this opaque miasma.
The richest innovations transforming our era involve inventions rooted in the processing and manipulation of information and these innovations must be encouraged and rewarded, not excluded from patent coverage because some failing but well-connected ‘too big to fail” entities don’t want patents from others to stand in their uncreative way. The AIA clearly shows the power of those Wall Street entities in guiding legislation and giving them special breaks, breaks that will do anything but strengthen innovation. Like much of the rest of the law, it’s directed at fixing the wrong things in the wrong way. May wiser heads quickly repeal or massively revise this legislation before backlogs explode and innovation fatigue is further spread across the US system.
Meanwhile, from my vantage point in Shanghai, I see China increasingly strengthening incentives for innovation and strengthening patent rights. This bodes well for the competitiveness of China in the future. America will soon be wondering how to catch up. How about some real patent reform down the road?
For a rather optimistic but definitely helpful overview of the impact of the AIA on patent practice, see PLI’s page, “America Invents Act: How the New Law Impacts Your Clients and Your Patent Practice.”
The Bogus IP Registration Scam: Becoming a Global Phenomenon, Beware!
Posted by: | CommentsThe good folks at the China Law Blog recently discussed a common scam that occurs in China. Actually, this is a scam that is shaking down small and large companies and lone inventors all over the globe. I’ve warned against it in the US for a long time and was intrigued to see it is going full-bore here in China.
When you file or obtain trademark registrations or patents, scammers are likely to send you an invoice asking for some large sum of money in return for being “registered” in their international database of patents or trademarks. In the Chinese version of the scam, you may received a bound volume of Chinese law with an enormous invoice. Failure to pay, they will tell you in annoying repeat calls, could result in all sorts of problems. Don’t pay. Don’t waste your time with them.
In US and European versions of the scam, the invoices sometimes come from Serbia or Croatia. But they can come from anywhere. If it’s from the government where you registered or filed your IP, throw it away. Unfortunately, enough businesses and gullible inventors just routinely pay invoices without asking tough questions that the scam is successful, thus causing it to spread. Don’t be fooled. When your innovation results in being ripped off, you’re on your way to innovation fatigue. Steer clear.
My New Life in Shanghai: Experiencing Innovation and IP Strategy in China
Posted by: | CommentsAfter four terrific years with Innovationedge helping large and small companies with IP strategy and innovation, I’ve made a big move from the small town of Appleton, Wisconsin to the world’s largest city, Shanghai (it is the world’s largest using the city proper definition: the population of the city within its official boundaries, excluding suburbs). I’ve accepted a posiiton as Head of Intellectual Property for Asia Pulp and Paper, a young company hungry to grow. It is currently the largest paper-related company in Asia outside of Japan with revenues around $20 billion, and will be growing into many interesting new product areas in the future. While many in the West assume that Chinese companies trample over Western IP, this company has experienced the pain of good inventions being stolen by Western companies, and is seeking to become more aggressive in building its own IP as they strengthen their approach to innovation. There is much to protect and much to create. It’s an exciting opportunity in a beautful and very enjoyable cty and nation. I’ve been here a couple of week now and really love it.
I will be sharing some of my experiences and perspectives here as I witness the aggressive, high-speed approach to innovation that is possible in Asia. We will also have man innovation fatigue factors to overcome along the way as we face tough competition, challenging regulations, and other barriers.
Meanwhile, if you have good IP skills or good experience in consumer products and innovation and wish to live in China for a while, send me a resume! Basic skills in Mandarin are a plus. Reach me at jeff underscore lindsay at app dot com dot cn.
Stoking Your Innovation Bonfire: A Great Read by Innovation Guru Braden Kelley
Posted by: | CommentsStoking Your Innovation Bonfire by Braden Kelley (John Wiley & Sons, 2010) is a highly readable, positive book about the practical side of innovation. Braden Kelley writes with the benefit of not only having many years of experience in supporting innovation, but with the insights that come from one of the best innovation networks on the planet. Braden’s Blogging Innovation effort has brought together numerous innovation thinkers around the world to share and contribute their insights on innovation success. Braden has many minds he can tap and the collective wisdom of many stars to guide his thinking.
Braden’s experience in innovation shows, for example, when he discusses the different innovation needs companies have depending on their innovation maturity level. Trying to run an open innovation program for a company just getting started on innovation could be a mistake–especially if internal systems for gathering and evaluating innovation concepts aren’t yet in place.
He also recognizes the need for long-term innovation strategy, not just short-term reactive strategy, to help a company survive in a world of disruptive innovation threats. Yet a focus only on long-term innovation bets could leave a company crippled by missing the short-term gains that are needed to still be thriving when the long-term bets pay off (if ever).
A strength of the book is the citation of numerous examples, mostly from large, well-known companies like Apple or Amazon. One of my favorite case studies occurs early in the book (pp. 14-16) and deals with the rise of General Motors and how they overtook Ford through the vision of Alfred Sloan, who saw the need for market segmentation, good design, and innovation in the business model by offering financial assistance to dealers and customers through GMAC.
Kelley provides practical guidance on some of the basic of innovation within a corporation. He offers, for example, an idea evaluation checklist (pp. 69-70) to assist in screening ideas from a brainstorming session. He also gives the very important lesson that innovation often must proceed slowly, and that a company must be prepared to pursue “slow innovation.” Companies must evaluate where they are on the innovation curve and determine when they must be prepared for many years of slow progress before a technology will be ready for commercial success. Such discipline in thinking and planning is essential to avoid rapid disappointment and premature abandonment of potentially successful concepts. Apple’s iPod is one of several case studies of slow innovation considered.
Kelley also addresses the major issues of organization, culture, and processes that are crucial for innovation success. Breaking down internal information and innovation barriers can be essential for improving innovation in a modern company. Creating a system that can manage innovation and maintain the flexibility needed for innovation success is a demanding challenge, but one that leaders need to face and embrace. Stoking Your Innovation Bonfire can help with that challenge. For both leaders and champions of innovation at all levels, Braden Kelley’s book is definitely worth the read.
Update on Reviews of the Book, Conquering Innovation Fatigue
Posted by: | CommentsWhile I normally use this blog space to discuss innovation, business, and technology topics that build upon our book, here’s a brief departure to share some news about recent reviews of the book itself. I’m glad to report that a Rolf Dobelli, a Top 50 Amazon reviewer and one of the founders of the terrific company, GetAbstract.com, has reviewed our book and given it five stars. Thanks, Rob! Here’s what he had to say at Amazon:
Although countless books explain why innovation matters and how to benefit from it, few address the reasons that companies and individuals don’t innovate successfully. That’s where this volume comes in. Jeff Lindsay, Cheryl Perkins and Mukund Karanjikar provide many examples of corporate, political and structural barriers that block innovation, the forces that smother it, and the organizational and social factors that make it difficult. Their analytical book expertly blends research and firsthand perspectives. Though the authors are somewhat fond of jargon and coined terms, their guide is a welcome addition to the innovation canon. getAbstract recommends it to innovators, human resources professionals and executives who want to inoculate their companies against the disease of innovation fatigue.
Thanks, Rolf!
Excerpts from a few others reviews at Amazon:
From Walter Reade:
Conquering Innovation Fatigue is an important and much-needed contribution to the innovation literature. If you have any interest in innovation, this book is a must read.
The book recognizes that the struggle corporations are facing to provide real innovation is complex and goes far beyond a lack of good ideas. On the contrary, there are behavioral, organizational, and external challenges that are the real culprits for squelching innovation.
From M. Roberts:
My firm consults with a lot of inventors and entrepreneurs, and I’ve been recommending this book to each of them before they head too far down the road. The value proposition to inventors/entrepreneurs will become evident within the first couple of chapters, but many larger corporations will benefit from the principles shared in this book as well. I’ve lost count with the number of companies that have a “Not Invented Here” culture that I’ve come in contact with. The NIH chapter alone is worth putting this book in your library….
Intellectual Property (IP) is the currency of the 21st century, and “innovation” is the key ingredient to any IP recipe. The authors of Innovation Fatigue clearly have a deep and profound understanding of this principle, and have pulled their insights together in a way that an individual inventor to a CEO of a Fortune 500 company can understand and put into action. Well done!
From Thomas Brainard:
Dr Lindsay and his coauthors have a hit here, probing how to identify and avoid major factors (fatigues) that destroy innovative effort. They create a 3×3 framework for this discussion, focusing on threats to property and trust, systemic flaws, and barriers to collaboration as applied across individual, organizational, and environmental factors. The framework felt slightly forced at times, but still I found it extremely useful; and the authors draw nicely from their experiences to provide numerous case studies and examples that document their conclusions.
As a patent attorney who has worked many years with innovators in a large corporate setting, I have faced firsthand many of the fatigue factors they discuss. This work is a crucial tool for R&D managers but, more importantly, it is a “must read” for leaders of an organization who have asked themselves “how do I get my teams to be more innovative”. The answer – which is not based in cost cutting, efficiency or shareholder opinion – may not be popular, but it is informative.
From E. Parker:
This book provides an in depth overview of the barriers to innovation. The authors have a deep understanding of the innovation process, and have written this book to categorize the various pitfalls that can prevent inventors from capitalizing on their ideas, or prevent new ideas from achieving success in the marketplace. There are a lot of books on the invention process, but relatively few on the challenges that can prevent good inventions from becoming innovations. This book takes a systematic approach to the subject. The chapters form a checklist that anyone can use to make sure that all barriers to innovation are minimized in their company, organization, or personal entrepreneurial endeavors.
I especially enjoyed reading the case studies. The book contains so many interesting stories about famous and not-so-famous inventors. I was unfamiliar with many of the stories and learned a great deal from the examples–particularly those where the inventor failed in his/her effort to bring an idea to fruition.
There are so many roadblocks on the inventor’s path. This book is like a road map for inventors or those who work with inventors–it details the pitfalls as a way to improve your chance of success. At the same time, the many stories make it fun to read. I highly recommend it.
From Carol Blaney:
I also appreciated the thorough attention given (in the second half of the book) to legal issues, including patents and government regulation issues, that can hinder innovation progress. A great collection of real examples were provided, leaving me with the equivalent of several lifetimes of careers in corporate management, patent law, and research & development – along with the wisdom gained thereof. Thank you Lindsay, Perkins, and Karanjikar for your contribution via this book.
From Brian Glassman:
This book explains the many fatigue factors by organizing them smartly into 9 easy to remember categories detailed in chapters 4 to 17. The book is well organized and easy to read. Interestingly, executive managers can take easy steps to remove fatigue factors and then have an easier time concentrating on the major barrier to innovation in the companies. Hence, I recommend this book as a nice read for innovation managers, and I strongly feel it would make a great reference book.
From Mary Ellyn Vicksta:
This is truly a unique book about innovation. Unlike most of the innovation books out there, this looks straight at innovation and masterfully helps you to recognize and overcome the 9 innovation fatigue factors. The advice is very practical, with examples and stories that helps the inventor understand the fatigue factors from the perspective of an individual, the organization, and the outer world. The examples are extremely well-written so that you become engaged in the story, while clearly understand what’s causing the fatigue and what you can do to be a successful innovator.
The stories explaining the fatigue factors have a tremendous range; something will speak to you given your own perspective on invention and innovation. . . .
There are many more gems within this book. It’s well-written, full of engaging stories, and a treasure box of great insight about invention and innovation.
From Reader:
It is rare that a business book hits the right balance between thoughtful reflection, actual experience, historical grounding and practical recommendations. Conquering Innovation Fatigue has nailed it exceptionally well. It is packed with stories of real people and inventors and real companies dealing with both success and frustration in bringing innovation to market. But examples are selected with care to illustrate some very important aspects of the creative process and remind us that innovations is really about humans, not just ideas.
We look forward to your review as well!
Easy Innovation You Can Use When Freezing Fruit
Posted by: | Comments
Hey, innovation fans, thought I’d share with you a simple innovation you can use if you like to freeze fruit. I found some delicious pineapples on sale at Aldi for 99 cents and bought several. Chopped them up into nice pieces and froze them. Challenge is, they stick together and form a solid frozen mass. Commercial frozen fruit can be agitated or separated during freezing to prevent welding of pieces together, but how can a consumer do it? I bet this is already out there, but a handy solution I came up with is to coat the fruit with a little corn syrup before freezing. Depending on how cold your freezer is, the fruit may still become welded together, but it’s much easier to loosen the mass into individual pieces.
Just enjoyed a delicious chunk of frozen pineapple, courtesy of my corn-syrup pretreatment method. OK, not much of an innovation, but still, enjoy!
Innovation: Going South for Success
Posted by: | CommentsAs I write, I am in a beautiful Spanish-speaking nation for the launch of a major advance in the manufacturing technology of a large industry. Our inventive client has a demonstrated breakthrough for one particular industry that could revolutionize how a class of products are made, with significant efficiency, quality, and environmental gains. It’s tremendously exciting, and the enthusiasm of our large industrial partner in this country is energizing and deeply appreciated.
Here, outside the United States, the leaders of the company we are working with really get innovation. As far as I can tell, they see advances in their processes and products not as threats to personal fiefdoms, but as opportunities that they have an obligation to pursue if they are to be true to themselves and their business. They are all on board for innovation. We are relishing the culture of innovation we are finding here, from seasoned mechanics to young employees and all the way up to the top man at the facility and his corporate leaders. It is wonderful, and yet we are savoring this experience with a touch of sorrow at how rare these attitudes are among their United States peers in this industry.
In the United States, our experiences in attempting to bring this innovation to U.S. companies followed many of the “innovation fatigue factors” that we discuss in our book, Conquering Innovation Fatigue. We reached out to a significant number of companies that should be interested. Some are genuinely interested, and we expect to see some exciting progress soon. But the most rapid and enthusiastic progress has come from south of the border.
Some US companies surprised and disappointed us, displaying classic “innovation fatigue factors.” “Not invented here” syndrome or “open innovation fatigue” played a role for some. In some cases a few people got busy looking for reasons not to be believe (the “reasons to doubt”). Naturally, part of the problem may have been the way the message was communicated and inadequate depth of contacts in reaching out to the prospective beneficiaries of the technology. Of course, I think much more than that is involved.
Once we looked south, things got a lot better. There is an openness to innovation and a hunger for success transcending many of the internal innovation fatigue factors that large companies often face. I’m not sure how things will turn out, but I will always be impressed with what I’ve experienced in one wonderful part of an innovative land where we found a surprisingly open and enthusiastic culture of innovation and cooperation. I hope companies to the north will be able to fortify their own will to innovate in order to keep up!
This week, anyway, we’re going south for innovation. Wish us buena suerte!
The View from Singapore: Vision and Leadership in Conquering Innovation Fatigue
Posted by: | CommentsI just returned from an adventure in innovation and culture in one of the world’s most delightful and innovative nations, Singapore, where I spoke about innovation during Innovation and Enterprise Week 2009 sponsored by A*STAR, the government’s large program for the advancement of scientific technology and research. What remarkable vision is at play in this effort!
Singapore is an example of what can be achieved in a nation with a bold vision of economic progress and long-term growth. One consistently gets the impression that officials there, whether university leaders, team leaders, or high-ranking politicians, have a strong desire to advance the welfare of the nation and its people by giving people the resources and opportunities to work hard and succeed through innovation and entrepreneurial activity. There is a culture of cooperation and vision that seems to permeate the activities of leaders and influencers far more than you might see in other parts of the world. The nation is not without its problems, and no individual is without human flaws, but what I saw impressed and surprised me.
The nation decided years ago that it wanted to be a place for world-class research and development. They boldly recruited leading talent and ramped up education for its own citizens. They crafted beautiful complexes for interdisciplinary research to pursue targeted areas. This resulted in a large science park, and then the One North complex with Biopolis, a collection of large buildings for R&D in the life sciences, and Fusionopolis, a massive edifice intended to bring together numerous disciplines in other areas. They invested huge amounts of money to support R&D. While other companies and nations are cutting back, they are increasing their R&D spending from what was about 2.5% of the GDP recently to 3% in 2010. Many billions of dollars are being committed to achieve their vision.
One cannot explore Singapore without realizing that its leaders are serious about making Singapore an attractive place for business, for research, and for innovation. They understand the importance of location and co-location. They have worked hard to make Singapore a center for business for many multinational corporations. Currently over 7,000 MNCs have a presence in Singapore. They have worked to bring many disciplines together for targeted purposes by co-locating disciplines in research at One North, which is also near to the National University of Singapore, the Ministry of Education, and other key facilities, not to mention integrating industrial centers such as the Lilly Center for Drug Discovery on the Biopolis campus. Bringing people and institutions together physically creates opportunities for synergy and cross-fertilization that can’t be matched by remote online interactions.
The synergy between business and state-funded R&D is further strengthened by sending researchers into industry for internships or limited engagements to provide firsthand experience into the realities of a start-up or other business.
The planning behind A*STAR has resulted in many fruits. There have been nearly 30 spin-off companies from these recent efforts. A patent estate of over 3,000 applications and patents exists (this number from A*STAR apparently includes filings in multiple nations, so the number of patent families is considerably less, but still healthy). Significant growth in licensing revenues is coming through the efforts of Exploit Technologies, the licensing and commercialization arm of A*STAR. International recognition is being earned for the accomplishments of A*STAR.
How a small nation of four million people has transformed itself into a powerhouse of R&D and excellence in science and business shows what can be done with strong leadership and a commitment to the future. Of course, you can’t overlook one of their secret weapons that help attract and retain so much great talent: some of the best food in the world. Check out the food courts at Biopolis and across this island nation. This is a land that understands the importance of great food. After all, isn’t food ultimately the fuel behind human innovation?
Here is a gallery with a few photos I took while in Singapore. Click on a thumbnail to see more of the respective photo. The first photo shows the famous mascot of Singapore, the mythical Merlion. The building in the 2nd and 3rd photos is Fusionopolis, showing two different views (north and south sides). Then there are some downtown shots and a Buddha in Chinatown.
