>>It is simply that they have no way to convert "get out of the way" into government policy.<<

I reckon this is theoretically easy to solve if Government has at its core the complementarity principle. That is, government should be set up to do those things that complement the private sector instead of competing with or crimping them (unless it is a regulator whose actions are protecting the interests of a vulnerable public, for example).

For example, years ago the Government had a research ship that was seen to compete with industry in looking for hydrocarbons. The solution was that the vessel was used to do regional work in frontier areas where industry did not have the interest or finances to explore. It was a classic win-win situation: the government got out the way while potentially opening up exploration options for the future.

My philosophy for 20 years. When? Government and loaning institutions genuinely 'get behind' and support entrepreneurship and Australian innovators and engineers, then, and only then, will Australia's trade get back on its feet.

I have had 3 innovations and tried patenting these. I had no option other than to throw the towel in after discovering that Government, Banks and loaning institutions are the problem.

Many Australians possess the motivation, determination, knowledge and skills as fantastic innovators, engineers of products, and are terrific in terms of marketing products. Yet, the Australian Government, Banks and loaning institutions do not wish, on many occasions, to take 'risks'with Australian entrepreneurs, innovators and engineers of products.

My products would assist road-users [the transport industry/Government] and people around the world. Little inexpensive tools engineered quite easily.

we are unique,

I recently saw a rerun of the Australian Story episode featuring Ric Richardson, the solo innovator who set up a business which developed machine fingerprinting technology to stop software piracy. He took out a US patent on his invention which was subsequently violated by Microsoft without notification or compensation. He went to court and won a US$388m suit against the company which was then wiped out by a subsequent ruling. The story is here:

http://www.theage.com.au/technology/biz-tech/aussie-inventors-445m-microsoft-windfall-wiped-out-20090930-gc77.html

After going through that, what solo innovator could be bothered commercialising anything, anywhere? Who knows, it might be a blessing in disguise that you're not being financially backed. The trouble is the innovation environment is so tough to compete in and to keep your IP and/or business intact.

Somewhere along the line, it would seem, an inventor has to make a compromise that ranges between keeping one's independence and taking the risk of being hit by a bus or of having one's invention filched, to joining a big company and being put on a salary.

From the article:

>>When I read the 76 pages of Powering Ideas I struck by the fact that although the word “innovation” is mentioned 525 times, the word “entrepreneur” is mentioned only once.<<

This is not surprising as "innovation" is a description of group activity whereas "entrepreneur" is about individual activity. The authors are appealing to the idea of strength in numbers. It's effectively an admission that individual entrepreneurs in Australia are like saplings trying to grow in the Sahara.

Somehow or other, if entrepreneurs are to flourish in Australia, we have to get a critical mass of them so that the heat is spread out more evenly amongst them. And this can only happen when there is a change of climate which makes it more conducive to carry out the activity in Australia. Then, and only then, will a sustainable entrepreneurship institute pop up. Until then, what's the point of having one?

Entrepreneurs may be essential to commersialise innovation but the most important factor is access to market and Government incentives that have significant market access need to target the path to market preferably with companies or with entrepreneurs that can engage or develop companies with significant market access to commercialise the innovation.

Supermarkets have significant market access and experience in marketing Me2 home brand products that can also market innovative products.

Supertooth is an online project employing evidence based innovation to target pits and fissures in chewing surfaces where food is trapped causing over 80% of cavities and brushing cannot reach to help prevent tooth decay. www.supertoothndk.org