Could it be that all these years of feeling like the poor cousin have in fact been training Australians to be more businesslike about their contribution to the international information economy?

For much of its industrial history, Australia has struggled with the dilemma of getting value out of its innovative thinking. On the one hand, being small and isolated is often cited as a reason why so much original thinking and invention come from Down Under. Witness the stump-jump plough, the utility car, and some of the world's smartest and most advanced machine tools.

On the other hand, having a small and isolated market, and limited sources of capital, are often blamed for the tendency for Australian inventors to either sell their ideas to overseas-based multinationals or leave the country.

It seems an irresolvable dilemma. And globalisation seems destined to make matters worse, what with all those international corporate giants consolidating their activities into core markets and exporting from one spot to the rest of the world.

But as the information economy begins to reveal the new nature of business, another picture is emerging.

Suddenly, it's okay to generate ideas and have other people build the businesses to execute them. In fact, it's downright praiseworthy. The most efficient way to run a business, actually. Let the marketers market, the manufacturers make things, and the managers co-ordinate, even if they are all in different countries. Just separate the value of the contribution of each and spread the rewards accordingly.

Look at InterTrust, the US company that has developed a software security product designed to protect any form of digital product.

Intertrust has done the hard computer science needed to create a platform technology, and licensed it to partners specialising in creating products specific to the needs of industries (such as financial services and music), who will in turn market their own branded services.

There is no duplication, capital is invested in the most targeted way, and all partners apply their skills exactly where they can have most effect.

Can Australia leverage its undoubted national intellectual capital in a similar way, and carve out a niche as one of the leading global sources of ideas?

Possibly. But there are a few things that need to happen first.

Chief among them is that Australian researchers and business minds need to want to do it and understand how to do it. Australia's universities and institutions such as the CSIRO have made huge steps in recent years in building communication with the business world.

The next step is for all concerned to take a global view and link to international business networks.

To do this, they need to understand how to protect that most amorphous of products: intellectual property. One of the things this will require is an understanding that brands are not just labels on coats. Computer hardware manufacturer Toshiba enhances the reputation of its product by putting an "Intel Inside" brand on its products. In the same way Australians need to be confident and aggressive enough in the marketplace to insist that they get credit for their work. Brand awareness equals survival.

But governments need to give them the tools to do this successfully.

Industry policy is too often understood as grand gestures and industry-specific support measures. Before long, everyone gets bogged down in a quagmire of arguments about protectionism and plain bad economic thinking.

But industry policy is equally about how the matrix of all policies, laws and regulations combine to create an environment for business. A good first step might be for governments to consider whether Australia's patent laws work efficiently enough that InterTrust could have built the same defences around its ideas that it did in the US.

If the legal mechanisms or bureaucratic processes are flawed, they need fixing. If they are there and working fine, governments should educate and encourage Australian researchers and entrepreneurs to consider how they can use them.

This is not intrusive and is consistent with allowing market forces to operate freely within international trade laws.

The biggest barrier might well be the dreaded Australian inferiority complex, born of so many years of watching our best and brightest ideas leave our shores. But leadership is all about encouraging people to think of what might be, instead of dwelling on what has been.