Friend and colleague Jack Uldrich is making waves again in the “nanopool.” His new book, titled Jump the Curve: 50 Essential Strategies for Dealing with Emerging Technologies, brings to bear his all-encompassing insight into advanced technologies, including those enabled by nanoscale materials.
From an October 1, 2007 Nanotechnology Now posting:
Noted Author Unveils New Website Dedicated to Exponential Advances in Technology
The amount of technological progress that is afoot is nothing short of revolutionary. To help leaders in all fields understand the accelerating pace of this change as well as provide them with the unique insights and innovative ideas necessary to better prepare their organizations for this radical advance, noted author and well-respected global futurist, Jack Uldrich has unveiled a new website: http://jumpthecurve.net
The new website compliments Uldrich's forthcoming book…and will be written in the same user-friendly way as his best-selling book The Next Big is Really Small: How Nanotechnology Will Change the Future of Business.
Read the rest of the story at http://www.nanotech-now.com/news.cgi?story_id=25313
Here are a few of my favorite quotes from JTC:
It is still difficult to obtain money, but for bright, motivated people with good ideas there is plenty of money to be found. To this end, many of the exponential advances … are now being funded by large corporations with deep pockets.
…it is important to understand that today’s accelerating pace of technological change implies, among other things, that society will likely experience the equivalent of 50 years of progress (at the old 20th century rate of change) in the next 10 to 15 years. And everywhere I look today—in the fields of nanotechnology, robotics, synthetic biology, information technology and the cognitive sciences—I see the modern day equivalent of the Sputnik launch. … just as Sputnik led to advances in communications and, in the process, the creation of entirely new industries, today’s technological advances are going to do the same thing—only they will do so in a timeframe that is exponentially faster than what we have experienced in the past half century.
Look for JTC early 2008.
In closing: Jack has an amazing ability to distill the best bits from the noise, and convert the insights gained into language fit for most levels of understanding, from CEO to person-on-the-street. Pay attention to what he says, if not for the fact that “Jack does know Jack about advanced technologies” then for the way he makes it accessible to diverse groups of stakeholders.
Showing posts with label patents. Show all posts
Showing posts with label patents. Show all posts
Tuesday, October 30, 2007
Tuesday, April 3, 2007
Nanotechnology Patenting Issues
Today I would like to present an interview that I did with nine leading university patent officials.
RR: What key points would you emphasize to the business community regarding the technology transfer process?
Charles F. Rancourt, Director, Office of Technology Commercialization, Rensselaer Polytechnic Institute: If you look at the process of Technology Transfer, what really helps in terms of building the relationship with a potential business partner is a good exchange of information between the parties; whether it be about the technology or about the market space the business partner is looking at. So from our standpoint a really important point here associated with this process is a good exchange, which needs to be ongoing throughout the relationship of information about the technology and the market place.
RR: What advice would you give a business wanting license your patents?
Oren Livne, Patent Manager, University of California, Santa Barbara: Talk to us. If we are able to understand what a company's needs are, we can often find university researchers or technologies in that area. If a company already has a specific patent of interest, we can work with them to get the license they need in a way that meets the sometimes complex policy guidelines of a public university.
RR: What are some of the hurdles in the way of commercialization of technologies discovered by universities?
James A. Poulos III, Executive Director of the Office of Technology Commercialization, University of Maryland: The large company two step; a company obtaining an exclusive position and sitting on the rights.; a lack of follow-on funding. As suggested above, a University technology is an early stage technology. A professor may have developed the algorithms for routing a packet of information securely over the Internet but no black box has been developed to show that to industry. And generally there is no funding and often times a lack of desire to develop such a prototype. It is very hard to license such technology when all you can show is the math and not a device cranking out the result.
RR: If you could, would you change anything about the patent process?
Troy Coyle, Manager of Innovation and Commercial Development (Engineering, Science and Law) Office of Technology Commercialization, University of Wollongong: There are numerous things I would like to change but if limited to one change, I would like international harmonisation of patent laws. It is very difficult to develop a comprehensive IP Protection Strategy when the rules vary between jurisdictions. For example, first to invent vs first to file issues, assumption of joint tenancy vs assumption of tenancy in common, grace period vs no grace period etc.
RR: Prior to working with a business to develop a new technology, what questions must you answer? Patent rights? Mutually defined (and agreed upon) definitions of success? Critical path to success? Stock distribution? Funding opportunities? Other?
Neil Iscoe, Director, Office of Technology Commercialization, for The University of Texas at Austin: When working with potential licensees, we discuss their commercialization plans and the resources that have available to achieve those goals. When working with a NewCo, we look at their business plan, their management team and the anticipated financing. With an established company, we look at their commercialization plans, their past successes, and their corporate goals and resource allocation.
RR: What are some of the hurdles in the way of commercialization of technologies discovered by universities?
William J. Decker, Assistant Director, Physical Science Licensing in the Technology Transfer and Intellectual Property Services (TechTIPS) office of the University of California, San Diego: There is a big gap between proving a concept and having three working, commercial-grade prototypes of a possible product (or having human data, if you are in the biomedical arena). University researchers are often only interested in proving a concept, publishing, and moving on to the next concept. Our inventions are usually at this very early stage. But having a tangible prototype of a product means a great deal in creating more value for a business interested in commercializing that particular technology, both in advancing the technology and the value of the technology at the time of licensing. Overcoming this hurdle - the gap between proof-of-concept and three working prototypes (or human data, if you are in the biomedical arena) - is key.
Read the entire interview, here:
http://www.nanotech-now.com/products/nanonewsnow/issues/031/031.htm#main
RR: What key points would you emphasize to the business community regarding the technology transfer process?
Charles F. Rancourt, Director, Office of Technology Commercialization, Rensselaer Polytechnic Institute: If you look at the process of Technology Transfer, what really helps in terms of building the relationship with a potential business partner is a good exchange of information between the parties; whether it be about the technology or about the market space the business partner is looking at. So from our standpoint a really important point here associated with this process is a good exchange, which needs to be ongoing throughout the relationship of information about the technology and the market place.
RR: What advice would you give a business wanting license your patents?
Oren Livne, Patent Manager, University of California, Santa Barbara: Talk to us. If we are able to understand what a company's needs are, we can often find university researchers or technologies in that area. If a company already has a specific patent of interest, we can work with them to get the license they need in a way that meets the sometimes complex policy guidelines of a public university.
RR: What are some of the hurdles in the way of commercialization of technologies discovered by universities?
James A. Poulos III, Executive Director of the Office of Technology Commercialization, University of Maryland: The large company two step; a company obtaining an exclusive position and sitting on the rights.; a lack of follow-on funding. As suggested above, a University technology is an early stage technology. A professor may have developed the algorithms for routing a packet of information securely over the Internet but no black box has been developed to show that to industry. And generally there is no funding and often times a lack of desire to develop such a prototype. It is very hard to license such technology when all you can show is the math and not a device cranking out the result.
RR: If you could, would you change anything about the patent process?
Troy Coyle, Manager of Innovation and Commercial Development (Engineering, Science and Law) Office of Technology Commercialization, University of Wollongong: There are numerous things I would like to change but if limited to one change, I would like international harmonisation of patent laws. It is very difficult to develop a comprehensive IP Protection Strategy when the rules vary between jurisdictions. For example, first to invent vs first to file issues, assumption of joint tenancy vs assumption of tenancy in common, grace period vs no grace period etc.
RR: Prior to working with a business to develop a new technology, what questions must you answer? Patent rights? Mutually defined (and agreed upon) definitions of success? Critical path to success? Stock distribution? Funding opportunities? Other?
Neil Iscoe, Director, Office of Technology Commercialization, for The University of Texas at Austin: When working with potential licensees, we discuss their commercialization plans and the resources that have available to achieve those goals. When working with a NewCo, we look at their business plan, their management team and the anticipated financing. With an established company, we look at their commercialization plans, their past successes, and their corporate goals and resource allocation.
RR: What are some of the hurdles in the way of commercialization of technologies discovered by universities?
William J. Decker, Assistant Director, Physical Science Licensing in the Technology Transfer and Intellectual Property Services (TechTIPS) office of the University of California, San Diego: There is a big gap between proving a concept and having three working, commercial-grade prototypes of a possible product (or having human data, if you are in the biomedical arena). University researchers are often only interested in proving a concept, publishing, and moving on to the next concept. Our inventions are usually at this very early stage. But having a tangible prototype of a product means a great deal in creating more value for a business interested in commercializing that particular technology, both in advancing the technology and the value of the technology at the time of licensing. Overcoming this hurdle - the gap between proof-of-concept and three working prototypes (or human data, if you are in the biomedical arena) - is key.
Read the entire interview, here:
http://www.nanotech-now.com/products/nanonewsnow/issues/031/031.htm#main
Thursday, March 1, 2007
The inexorable march down
One area that “nano” shows up in and is mostly not recognized for is the computer chip industry. The “chip” industry has been working within the nanoscale for years, and is now testing graphene-based transistors that are one atom thick and less than fifty atoms wide (1).
At $200-billion per year (and growing), the chip industry is a major player in terms of employment and revenues, and is a driving force for dozens of other industries and technologies, which is why this is another area that I will cover on a regular basis.
Below you will find a summary of the latest news, covering the period from December 29, 2006, to January 12, 2007.
IBM is testing a new technology that uses “engineered chains of carbon monoxide molecules on a surface of copper.” This technology, while still years away from meaningful products, is one step closer to computing on the scale of individual atoms.
Researchers at Rensselaer Polytechnic are working with hybrid structures consisting of carbon nanotubes and metal nanowires. Resultant technologies could impact many areas within the electronics industry, such as using nanotubes as interconnects in chips.
Foundry United Microelectronics announced plans to open a new 300mm wafer plant in 2008, costing about $5 billion.
DuPont Air Products Nanomaterials is suing Cabot Microelectronics Corp. The issue: “the process used in the manufacture and sale of the slurry polishing compound and pad products needed in chemical mechanical planarization (CMP).”
“A team of researchers from ETH Zurich in Switzerland and Zhejiang University in PR China have demonstrated nanorobotic spot welding using single-crystalline copper-filled CNTs inside a transmission electron microscope (TEM).” (http://www.nanowerk.com/spotlight/spotid=1192.php)
With the end of Moore's Law looming as a possibility, the search for something to replace today's workhorse CMOS-based silicon is intensifying, researchers told the AVS International Symposium & Exhibition in San Francisco last November. (RR: good background information on Moore’s Law and some of the technologies that may extend it) (http://www.eetasia.com/ARTP_8800447621_480200.HTM)
Josh Wolfe (Forbes/Wolfe Nanotech Report) picked IBM’s nanotube electrical circuit research as one of five nanotech breakthroughs of 2006. “The integrated logic circuit consists of 12 transistors made of palladium and aluminum tracing the length of a single carbon nanotube. The circuit is hundreds of times slower than today's silicon processors, but it is 100,000 times faster than any previous carbon nanotube device and has the potential to be much faster.” (http://www.forbes.com/home/personalfinance/2006/12/26/nanotech-breakthroughs-ibm-pf-guru-in_jw_1227soapbox_inl.html)
(1) http://www.rsc.org/chemistryworld/News/2007/February/28020703.asp
Please contact me at rocky at bir-consulting.com for detailed reports on this or any other "nanotech" area, including advanced materials, nanomedicine, energy, cleantech, etc.
At $200-billion per year (and growing), the chip industry is a major player in terms of employment and revenues, and is a driving force for dozens of other industries and technologies, which is why this is another area that I will cover on a regular basis.
Below you will find a summary of the latest news, covering the period from December 29, 2006, to January 12, 2007.
IBM is testing a new technology that uses “engineered chains of carbon monoxide molecules on a surface of copper.” This technology, while still years away from meaningful products, is one step closer to computing on the scale of individual atoms.
Researchers at Rensselaer Polytechnic are working with hybrid structures consisting of carbon nanotubes and metal nanowires. Resultant technologies could impact many areas within the electronics industry, such as using nanotubes as interconnects in chips.
Foundry United Microelectronics announced plans to open a new 300mm wafer plant in 2008, costing about $5 billion.
DuPont Air Products Nanomaterials is suing Cabot Microelectronics Corp. The issue: “the process used in the manufacture and sale of the slurry polishing compound and pad products needed in chemical mechanical planarization (CMP).”
“A team of researchers from ETH Zurich in Switzerland and Zhejiang University in PR China have demonstrated nanorobotic spot welding using single-crystalline copper-filled CNTs inside a transmission electron microscope (TEM).” (http://www.nanowerk.com/spotlight/spotid=1192.php)
With the end of Moore's Law looming as a possibility, the search for something to replace today's workhorse CMOS-based silicon is intensifying, researchers told the AVS International Symposium & Exhibition in San Francisco last November. (RR: good background information on Moore’s Law and some of the technologies that may extend it) (http://www.eetasia.com/ARTP_8800447621_480200.HTM)
Josh Wolfe (Forbes/Wolfe Nanotech Report) picked IBM’s nanotube electrical circuit research as one of five nanotech breakthroughs of 2006. “The integrated logic circuit consists of 12 transistors made of palladium and aluminum tracing the length of a single carbon nanotube. The circuit is hundreds of times slower than today's silicon processors, but it is 100,000 times faster than any previous carbon nanotube device and has the potential to be much faster.” (http://www.forbes.com/home/personalfinance/2006/12/26/nanotech-breakthroughs-ibm-pf-guru-in_jw_1227soapbox_inl.html)
(1) http://www.rsc.org/chemistryworld/News/2007/February/28020703.asp
Please contact me at rocky at bir-consulting.com for detailed reports on this or any other "nanotech" area, including advanced materials, nanomedicine, energy, cleantech, etc.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
