Genome Canada, the Canadian Institute for Advanced Research and the Canada Foundation for Innovation.
Still, Canadian businesses continue to underperform when it comes to innovation—a primary driver of productivity growth—when compared to other competing nations. The performance of business R&D is one oft-cited measure used to gauge the level of innovative activity in a country's business sector.
Canadians have reached top tier global performance in reading, mathematics, problem solving and science, and Canada has rising numbers of graduates with doctoral degrees in science and engineering.
This valuable resource of highly qualified and skilled individuals needs to be better leveraged.
The ease and ability of the academic community to collaborate, including through research networks, is also well-recognized.
to develop technologies, products and services that add value and create high-paying jobs.
Canada has an impressive record when it comes to research and the quality of its knowledge base.
Still, the innovative performance of Canada's firms and the productivity growth continue to lag behind competing nations.
The government is also committed to moving forward with a new approach to promoting business innovation—one that emphasizes active business-led initiatives and focuses resources on better fostering the growth of innovative firms.
Achieving this requires the concerted effort of all players in the innovation system—to ensure each does what one does best and to leverage one another's strengths.
the government has invested more to support science, technology and innovative companies than ever before
providing a new framework to guide federal ST&I investments and priorities. That is why the Government of Canada stated its intention to release an updated ST&I Strategy in the October 2013 Speech from the Throne.
seeking the views of stakeholders from all sectors of the ST&I system—including universities, colleges and polytechnics, the business community, and Canadians
written submissions from all Canadians on the policy issues and questions presented in this paper.
The government remains focused on creating jobs, growth and long-term prosperity for Canadians
encouraging partnerships with industry, attracting highly skilled researchers, continuing investments in discovery-driven research, strengthening Canada's knowledge base, supporting research infrastructure and providing incentives to private sector innovation.
has transformed the National Research Council, doubled its investment
supported research collaborations through the federal granting councils
created the new Venture Capital Action Plan
helping to promote greater commercialization of research and development
Our country continues to lead the G7 in spending on R&D
Canada has a world-class post-secondary education system that embraces and successfully leverages collaboration with the private sector, particularly through research networks
destination for some of the world's brightest minds
global race
businesses that embrace innovation-based strategies
post-secondary and research institutions that attract and nurture highly qualified and skilled talent
Why a race? We need to change the way we see this!!! We need to open up. See the European Commission Horizon 2020 program
http://ec.europa.eu/programmes/horizon2020/en/
They are acknowledging that Europe cannot do it alone, and are spending money on International collaboration.
There is nothing about non-institutionalized innovation, i.e. open source! There is nothing about the public in this equation like the Europeans do in the Digital Era for Europe program
https://ec.europa.eu/digital-agenda/node/66731
low taxes, strong support for new businesses, a soundly regulated banking system, and ready availability of financial services
reducing red tape
expanding training partnerships and improving access to venture capital.
Collaboration is key to mobilizing innovation
invest in partnerships between businesses and colleges and universities
But the public and in people is still not in sight of the fed gov.
Economic Action Plans (EAP) 2012 and 2013
provide incentive for innovative activity in firms, improved access to venture capital, augmented and more coordinated direct support to firms, and deeper partnerships and connections between the public and private sectors.
The problem is that this economic dependency is not symmetrical
All labor is transferred into fluid equity through a value accounting system, which grants ownership to the participant member to a percentage of the future revenue generated for the lifetime of the product created
We heard that the government should be more focussed on helping innovative firms to grow and, particularly, on serving the needs of small and medium-sized enterprises (SMEs)
greater cooperation with provincial programs
innovation support is too narrowly focussed on R&D – more support is needed for other activities along the continuum from
ideas to commercially useful innovation
more productive and internationally competitive economy
whole-of-government program delivery vehicle – the Industrial Research and Innovation Council (IRIC)
SR&ED program should be simplified
includes non-labour costs, such as materials and capital equipment, the calculation of which can be highly complex
the base for the tax credit should be labour-related costs, and the tax credit rate should be adjusted upward
fund direct support measures for SMEs
promoting the growth of firms
facilitating access by such firms to an increased supply of risk capital at both the start-up and later stages of their growth.
building public–private research collaborations
National Research Council (NRC) should become independent collaborative research organizations
become affiliates of universities
create opportunity and demand for leading-edge goods
encouragement of innovation in the Canadian economy should become a stated objective of procurement policies and programs.
the government needs to establish business innovation as a whole-of-government priority
put innovation at the centre of the government's economic strategy
Innovation Advisory Committee (IAC) – a body with a whole-of-government focus that would oversee the realization of our proposed action plan, as well as serve as a permanent mechanism to promote the refinement and improvement of the government's business innovation programs going forward.
focus resources where market forces are unlikely to operate effectively or efficiently and, in that context, address the full range of business innovation activities, including research, development, commercialization and collaboration with other key actors in the innovation ecosystem
the closer the activity being supported is to market, and therefore the more likely it is that the recipient firm will capture most of the benefit for itself.
Something with no reproduction costs can have no exchange-value in a context of free exchange.
Further, unless it can be converted into exchange-value, how can the peer producers be able to acquire the material needs for their own subsistence?
For Social Production to have any effect on general material wealth it has to operate within the context of a total system of goods and services, where the physical means of production and the virtual means of production are both available in the commons for peer production.
"All texts published in Situationist International may be freely reproduced, translated and edited, even without crediting the original source."
The website of the creative commons makes the following statement about it's purpose: "Creative Commons defines the spectrum of possibilities between full copyright -- all rights reserved -- and the public domain -- no rights reserved. Our licenses help you keep your copyright while inviting certain uses of your work -- a 'some rights reserved' copyright."
The website of the creative commons makes the following statement about it's purpose: "Creative Commons defines the spectrum of possibilities between full copyright -- all rights reserved -- and the public domain -- no rights reserved. Our licenses help you keep your copyright while inviting certain uses of your work -- a 'some rights reserved' copyright."
Or more specifically, who is a position to convert the use-value available in the "commons" into the exchange-value needed to acquire essential subsistence or accumulate wealth?
All texts published in Situationist International may be freely reproduced, translated and edited, even without crediting the original source
The point of the above is clear, the Creative Commons, is to help "you" (the "Producer") to keep control of "your" work. The right of the "consumer" is not mentioned, neither is the division of "producer" and "consumer" disputed.
Creative "Commons" is thus really an Anti-Commons, serving to legitimise, rather than deny, Producer-control and serving to enforce, rather than do away with, the distinction between producer and consumer
specifically providing a framework then, for "producers" to deny "consumers" the right to either create use-value or material exchange-value of the "common" stock of value in the Creative "Commons" in their own cultural production
Thus, the very problem presented by Lawrence Lessig, the problem of Producer-control, is not in anyway solved by the presented solution, the Creative Commons, so long as the producer has the exclusive right to chose the level of freedom to grant the consumer, a right which Lessig has always maintained support for
The Free Software foundation, publishers of the GPL, take a very different approach in their definition of "free," insisting on the "four freedoms:" The Freedom to use, the freedom to study, the freedom to share, and the freedom to modify.
The website of the creative commons makes the following statement about it's purpose: "Creative Commons defines the spectrum of possibilities between full copyright -- all rights reserved -- and the public domain -- no rights reserved. Our licenses help you keep your copyright while inviting certain uses of your work -- a 'some rights reserved' copyright
In all these cases what is evident is that the freedom being insisted upon is the freedom of the consumer to use and produce, not the "freedom" of the producer to control.
Moreover, proponents of free cultural must be firm in denying the right of Producer-control and denying the enforcement of distinction between producer and consumer
where a class-less community of workers ("peers") produce collaboratively within a property-less ("commons-based") society
Clearly, even Marx would agree that the ideal of Communism was commons-based peer production
the property in the commons is entirely non-rivalrous property
The use-value of this information commons is fantastic
However, if commons-based peer-production is limited exclusively to a commons made of digital property with virtual no reproduction costs then how can the use-value produced be translated into exchange-value?
Further, unless it can be converted into exchange-value, how can the peer producers be able to acquire the material needs for their own subsistence
The root of the problem of poverty does not lay in a lack of culture or information
but of direct exploitation of the producing class by the property owning classes
The source of poverty is not reproduction costs, but rather extracted economic rents, forcing the producers to accept less than the full product of their labour as their wage by denying them independent access to the means of production
So long as commons-based peer-production is applied narrowly to only an information commons, while the capitalist mode of production still dominates the production of material wealth, owners of material property, namely land and capital, will continue to capture the marginal wealth created as a result of the productivity of the information commons.
Whatever exchange value is derived from the information commons will always be captured by owners of real property, which lays outside the commons.
For Social Production to have any effect on general material wealth it has to operate within the context of a total system of goods and services, where the physical means of production and the virtual means of production are both available in the commons for peer production
For free cultural to create a valuable common stock it must destroy the privilege of the producer to control the common stock, and for this common stock to increase the real material wealth of peer producers, the commons must include real property, not just information
Strong grasp of the issues, not entirely in agreement on the thesis that the solution is the removal of producer control as this does not support the initiation of an economy, only its ongoing function once established, and the economy is continuously intiating itself, so it is not a one time problem. I do support the notion that producers are in fact none other than consumers of prior art but also that effort is required to remix as much as the magical creation out of nothing. In order to incent this behavior then (or even merely to allow it) the basic scarce needs of the individual must be taken care of. This may be done by ensuring beneficial ownership, but even that suffers from the initiation problem, which the requires us to have a pool of wealth to kickstart the thing by supporting every last person on earth with a basic income - that wealth is in fact available...
The collaborative economy, driven by a convergence of numerous factors including the global economic recession, growing environmental consciousness and the growing ubiquity of information communication technologies (ICTs) is booming, with more than $2 billion in investment raised from venture capitalists
5
and $3.5 billion generated for users in P2P models in 2013.
6
The reason for this is that credit is merely one way by which a society manages the distribution of goods and services. . . . A credit collapse . . . doesn’t make the energy, raw materials, and labor vanish into some fiscal equivalent of a black hole; they’re all still there, in whatever quantities they were before the credit collapse, and all that’s needed is some new way to allocate them to the production of goods and services.
Better would be to have an alternative system in place and ready to implement before the boom drops.
On a national level, when the Wall Street credit system fails, the government can turn to the innovative model devised by our colonial forebears and start issuing its own currency and credit—a power now usurped by private banks but written into the US Constitution as belonging to Congress
"The reason for this is that credit is merely one way by which a society manages the distribution of goods and services. . . . A credit collapse . . . doesn't make the energy, raw materials, and labor vanish into some fiscal equivalent of a black hole; they're all still there, in whatever quantities they were before the credit collapse, and all that's needed is some new way to allocate them to the production of goods and services."
and
"Better would be to have an alternative system in place and ready to implement before the boom drops."
taken together may imply something other than the article's proposed solution of
"On a national level, when the Wall Street credit system fails, the government can turn to the innovative model devised by our colonial forebears and start issuing its own currency and credit-a power now usurped by private banks but written into the US Constitution as belonging to Congress"
financial services or telemarketing, or the unprecedented expansion of sectors like corporate law, academic and health administration, human resources, and public relations
provide administrative, technical, or security support for these industries, or for that matter the whole host of ancillary industries (dog-washers, all-night pizza deliverymen) that only exist because everyone else is spending so much of their time working in all the other ones
It’s as if someone were out there making up pointless jobs just for the sake of keeping us all working. And here, precisely, lies the mystery. In capitalism, this is exactly what is not supposed to happen
Sure, in the old inefficient socialist states like the Soviet Union, where employment was considered both a right and a sacred duty, the system made up as many jobs as they had to (this is why in Soviet department stores it took three clerks to sell a piece of meat)
working 40 or even 50 hour weeks on paper, but effectively working 15 hours just as Keynes predicted, since the rest of their time is spent organising or attending motivational seminars
The ruling class has figured out that a happy and productive population with free time on their hands is a mortal danger
The answer clearly isn’t economic: it’s moral and political
And, on the other hand, the feeling that work is a moral value in itself, and that anyone not willing to submit themselves to some kind of intense work discipline for most of their waking hours deserves nothing, is extraordinarily convenient for them
Hell is a collection of individuals who are spending the bulk of their time working on a task they don’t like and are not especially good at
they all become so obsessed with resentment at the thought that some of their co-workers might be spending more time making cabinets
It’s not entirely clear how humanity would suffer were all private equity CEOs, lobbyists, PR researchers, actuaries, telemarketers, bailiffs or legal consultants to similarly vanish. (Many suspect it might markedly improve.)
plagued with debts and a newborn daughter, ended up, as he put it, “taking the default choice of so many directionless folk: law school
Now he’s a corporate lawyer working in a prominent New York firm. He was the first to admit that his job was utterly meaningless, contributed nothing to the world, and, in his own estimation, should not really exist
I would not presume to tell someone who is convinced they are making a meaningful contribution to the world that, really, they are not. But what about those people who are themselves convinced their jobs are meaningless?
(Answer: if 1% of the population controls most of the disposable wealth, what we call “the market” reflects what they think is useful or important, not anybody else.)
should you meet them at parties and admit that you do something that might be considered interesting (an anthropologist, for example), will want to avoid even discussing their line of work entirely
This is a profound psychological violence here. How can one even begin to speak of dignity in labour when one secretly feels one’s job should not exist?
Yet it is the peculiar genius of our society that its rulers have figured out a way, as in the case of the fish-fryers, to ensure that rage is directed precisely against those who actually do get to do meaningful work
in our society, there seems a general rule that, the more obviously one’s work benefits other people, the less one is likely to be paid for it
There’s a lot of questions one could ask here, starting with, what does it say about our society that it seems to generate an extremely limited demand for talented poet-musicians, but an apparently infinite demand for specialists in corporate law?
Even more perverse, there seems to be a broad sense that this is the way things should b
You can see it when tabloids whip up resentment against tube workers for paralysing London during contract disputes: the very fact that tube workers can paralyse London shows that their work is actually necessary, but this seems to be precisely what annoys people
It’s even clearer in the US, where Republicans have had remarkable success mobilizing resentment against school teachers, or auto workers (and not, significantly, against the school administrators or auto industry managers who actually cause the problems)
It’s as if they are being told “but you get to teach children! Or make cars! You get to have real jobs! And on top of that you have the nerve to also expect middle-class pensions and health care?”
If someone had designed a work regime perfectly suited to maintaining the power of finance capital, it’s hard to see how they could have done a better job
The remainder are divided between a terrorised stratum of the – universally reviled – unemployed and a larger stratum who are basically paid to do nothing, in positions designed to make them identify with the perspectives and sensibilities of the ruling class (managers, administrators, etc) – and particularly its financial avatars – but, at the same time, foster a simmering resentment against anyone whose work has clear and undeniable social value
Phase 1 has a classical language. We would need to mask our true identity and beliefs writing this grant proposal. I don't think it's for us... But this is only my opinion.
In phase 2, innovation projects will be supported that address the specific challenge of Sustainable Food Security
demonstrate high potential in terms of company competitiveness and growth underpinned by a strategic business plan
Moreover, they put emphasis on IP protection and ownership, when we must talk about commons, knowledge commons applied to agriculture, sharing platforms, etc.
Proposals shall be based on an elaborated business plan either developed through phase 1 or another means.
Particular attention must be paid to IP protection and ownership
Successful beneficiaries will be offered coaching and mentoring support during phase 1 and phase 2.
Topic: Innovative schemes for open innovation and science 2.0
INSO-4-2015
open innovation and science 2.0
assist universities to become open innovation centres for their region in cooperation with companies, realising the ERA priorities, and to enable public administrations to drive innovation in and through the public sector.
help universities, companies and public authorities to enhance their capacity to engage in science 2.0 and open innovation.
effective linkages for innovation between universities and companies and other employment sectors, and provide freely accessible innovation training platforms, including digital platforms.
consortia
adopt innovative ways to create new knowledge, new jobs and promote economic growth
a). Inter-sectoral mobility
b) Academia- Business knowledge co-creation
c) Innovation leadership programme for public administrations and researchers
a policy of double nominations
a policy to further and recognise inter-sectoral mobility
This challenge can be addressed through different sets of actions:
develop or (further) implement open innovative schemes to strengthen linkages between academia, industry and community
Research institutions together with companies are expected to build sustainable structures which help to absorb needs of users and thereby become co-creators of new solutions. SMEs should be encouraged to participate.
This is something that really fits SENSORICA. We've been working on this for 2 years now.
developing curricula and providing freely through online platforms, possibly combined with other delivery mechanisms, innovation training for public administrations and researchers.