The Prague Post
http://www.aaaradiotaxi.cz/index.php?xSET=lang&xLANG=2
November 20th, 2008
Endowment Fund     Business Listings ONLINE      Reservations      Classifieds    Subscriptions
Prague accommodation

Home » Archives » Business

10 Questions

with Jean-Marie Le Goff
10 Questions | Search restaurants | Archives

April 30th, 2008 issue

COURTESY PHOTO
Le Goff says small Czech start-ups should cooperate with public research institutes.
enlarge
THE LE GOFF FILE



Job title: Head of Technology Transfer, European Organization for Nuclear Research (CERN)
Age: 50
Nationality: French
Previous position: Visiting professor, Faculty of Computer Studies and Mathematics, University of the West of England
Education: DPhil, computer
science, University of the West of England; Ph.D., particle physics, University of Caen, France
The Czech Republic is set to receive some 60 billion Kč ($3.8 billion) toward research from European Union structural funds over the next few years. Several research institutions, like the Academy of Sciences, have announced ambitious research centers tapping this money. To talk about how such research can eventually filter down to business, The Prague Post recently spoke with Jean-Marie Le Goff, the head of technology transfer at CERN, the pan-European research center based outside Geneva, Switzerland.
? Why should research institutions like CERN have technology transfer offices?
At CERN we do fundamental research, for which the objective is purely scientific discovery. To make those discoveries you need to develop sophisticated apparatuses, which can’t be ordered from industry. So we build prototypes that industry then manufactures. In this process, we develop innovations that are transferred to industry for the device’s construction.
We’ve discovered that industry has widely benefited from this process. They’ve managed to acquire know-how that they’ve used in developing products not at all related to particle physics. This is fine, but we had no idea about it.
So this department exists to bridge the gap with industry and show funding agencies and society the benefits of our research. If you look at the last 120 years, fundamental research has led to all the key technologies that society finds essential today. We need to strengthen this message; otherwise, agencies may find it difficult to justify the kind of funding we need.
? How long does it take for a technological breakthrough at CERN to filter down into usable applications?
It depends on the technology and the advancements of industry in that field. But at CERN we’ve seen the time-to-market of the technology developed here reducing significantly. It’s gone from decades, sometimes, to a few years.
? Do the scientific discoveries that come out of basic research also find their way to industry?
There’ll always be people who come up with a clever idea applying a physics principle in a completely new way. This was the case in the 1970s, when two CERN scientists decided to use electromagnetic sensors in functional imaging and ended up creating PET scans. Today PET/CT is a very important market. We’re talking about billions of dollars on a yearly basis. It’s an essential tool at hospitals.
? Is it difficult to convince research scientists to think about real-world applications for their innovations?
We try. The context is complex. The principles of our scientific community are highly collaborative research and publishing for scientific recognition. Opposing this are two forces, competitiveness and intellectual property protection. We have to reconcile these two sets of requirements without altering the research process.
Then you take opportunities to spot possible innovations and explain to scientists that there is no contradiction between publishing and protecting. On the contrary, patents are among the highest-quality publications.
? When a technology goes from a research institution to a company, who ends up holding the patent?
It depends. If it’s an innovation that’s strictly come from CERN and we use it for our own purposes, then the patent would be owned by CERN. But it may very well be that an innovation results from a collaboration between CERN and industry. In that case, if the patent is close to the product, then industry will file the patent. We’ll have co-ownership but industry will file the patent, provide the necessary license and commercialize it. Depending on the case, we can also negotiate the right to license this patent in a noncompetitive way with our partner.
? Has there been a change in how companies use patents?
Historically, companies would file patents to protect their manufacturing. But recently, within the past 15 years, companies such as IBM have decided to license the R&D they are not using internally, creating additional income. For IBM we’re talking about $1.5 billion per year. It’s quite successful, though we don’t know how much it cost in terms of patents.
? The U.S. has become adept at encouraging its research scientists to create spin-off companies based on their breakthroughs. Is this common in Europe?
No, it’s not that common. The approach in the United States, which is based on strong licensing, is something that will probably never work in Europe. Of course, in bioscience this is a normal practice and you have a lot of spin-offs; in that field, Europe and the United States are equivalent. But if you take software, for example, the scientific community is supportive of open software, which, by the way, is also what the European Commission supports.
These are the two extremes. And I’d say CERN is in the middle, because we have an open science spirit but we’re starting to be aware that our technologies may be of use to society. But our infrastructure and the need to use our own technologies will not facilitate start-ups. It favors licensing, not start-ups, which need exclusivity. Whenever you take a patent at CERN or anywhere in Europe — except Sweden — the invention belongs to the organization. The inventors are acknowledged, of course, but what to do with the invention is up to the organization.
? In Sweden the inventors have control?
Yes, the intellectual property is vested in the inventors and they are free to file patents. Sweden definitely favors start-ups. But then it forces the inventor to be part of the company, which is not the best combination. Ninety-nine percent of inventors are not businesspeople.
The consequences of this is that the company may start fast but when you really have to come out with the product and marketing strategy — well, let’s say Sweden is not known to have a better success rate for start-ups then other countries. It’s not clear that it works.
? The Czech Republic’s government has said that it wants to spur investment in R&D and move away from heavy industry. How difficult is that shift to make?
High-tech is growing all around the world. Consumer electronics is becoming highly competitive with heavy industry. And in terms of return to the country, it’s much better.
The problem with high-tech is that R&D is costly. The return on investment can be years. Even very large companies can’t afford to do full R&D on all the possible technology candidates. So some of these large firms finance R&D at small companies and then acquire the company that ends up with the best technology. This is called in-sourcing.
This scheme fits well with public research organizations. We can outsource technologies to these small firms, which build and commercialize the product and eventually deal with the much bigger company for distribution.
? So Czechs should focus on founding these types of small research companies in collaboration with universities?
Yes. This is almost the preferred scheme if you start from a small company in a country where you don’t have a strong background in high-tech. Developing technologies is costly, so you can’t start from scratch. You can’t afford to go to a company that already has the technology. Therefore the only place you can go is to public research organizations.
These institutions range from more applied to more fundamental. You have to decide who to approach. When you start, you may go for applied because your investment to market will be smaller. But if you’re looking for a breakthrough, go to fundamental research.
And if governments are willing to facilitate the R&D cycle, they should not overlook bridging the gap between the results of basic research and the products industry needs. Ideally, industry would deal with tech-oriented institutions while the government invests in fundamental research and bridging the innovation gap.
Want your manager to answer our 10 Questions? Contact Paul Voosen at pvoosen@praguepost.com


Other articles in Business (30/04/2008):

Browse the Current Issue

If you enjoyed this article, why don't you subscribe to the print version!
We accept secure online transactions provided by PayPal and Moneybookers

Be the first to add a comment!


Full Name: *
City: *
E-mail: **
This comment can be published in the print version of The Prague Post
Enter the text on the right:
 visual captcha
Comment: *
* Required field. In order to be approved for display, comments must have a first and last name and a city.
** E-mails are required and will only be used for internal purposes.

Most visited in Business Listings

Hotel booking
The Prague Post Online contains a selection of articles that have been printed in
The Prague Post, a weekly newspaper published in the Czech Republic.
To subscribe to the print paper, click here.
Unauthorized reproduction is strictly prohibited.