Become a fan of Slashdot on Facebook

 


Forgot your password?
Close
typodupeerror
×
Patents The Almighty Buck Science Technology

NEC Demands License Fees For Carbon Nanotubes 103

Posted by timothy from the candlestick-makers-watch-out dept.
apirkle writes "As reported in this article on EEtimes.com, NEC has claimed today that they own 'essential patents' on carbon nanotubes, and that all companies who make or sell nanotubes must purchase a license. NEC has a press release stating that they have already sold a license."
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

NEC Demands License Fees For Carbon Nanotubes More

NEC Demands License Fees For Carbon Nanotubes

Comments Filter:

  • NEC (Score:5, Funny)

    by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday March 03, 2004 @03:52PM (#8454978)
    ..the SCO of the Science World.

    "All your nanotubes are belong to us"

    FP!

    • Re:NEC (Score:4, Insightful)

      by KingOfBLASH ( 620432 ) on Wednesday March 03, 2004 @10:54PM (#8459588) Journal
      ..the SCO of the Science World.
      Actually this is a situation where patents may be doing what they're supposed to -- providing financial incentive for researchers. If NEC has, indeed, put in the research dollars to develop carbon nanotubes, they should reap the benefits of the use of their research.

      • Re:NEC (Score:4, Insightful)

        by A55M0NKEY ( 554964 ) on Thursday March 04, 2004 @11:50AM (#8463673) Homepage Journal
        Um.. How is the parent post flamebait? It would seem to be the conventional view that that patents are precicely for the purpose of rewarding those who have put in research dollars.

        Here's a question: If someone has a patent on nanotubes, but someone would like to research an improvement to nanotubes that would involve creating something similar enough to nanotubes that it infringes on a NEC patent, would that person need to purchase a NEC license to do research? For example suppose NEC has a patent on Nanotubes, but they can only make them in gram quantities, but I research and patent a method for making them by the ton out of horse manure, then can NEC sue me for making all those nanotubes during my research phase without permission?

  • A bit worried here... (Score:3, Interesting)

    by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday March 03, 2004 @03:54PM (#8454989)
    Ok guys... is there any way we can stop this nonsense? I mean like really?

    • Re:A bit worried here... (Score:1, Funny)

      by Anonymous Coward
      NO kidding! this is utterly ridiculous, how can someone even claim to own a patent on nanotubes? seriously! idiots.....er, what are nanotubes?
      • Putting a Stop to NEC Nonsense: A) A boycott of all NEC products. B) A campaign to dump all NEC stock from pension funds. C) A mass movement for jury nullification of all acts of attorney-cide, that means open season on attorneys. Now some might say there are good attorneys who are trying to change the system from within, as there were some "good" Nazis.

  • Greedy (Score:5, Insightful)

    by addie ( 470476 ) on Wednesday March 03, 2004 @03:55PM (#8455015)
    Greedy, greedy, greedy. Take some responsibility, take a hit for the future, realize that you're part of the world too. Carbon nanotubes have the potential to be everywhere, from space elevators to shoe laces to medical devices. NEC should step back and work on a plan that would allow their technology to be used by other companies, but the credit can still go to NEC. Money ain't everything.

    Sorry for the disjointed rant, but this is a very annoying announcement.

    • Re:Greedy (Score:5, Insightful)

      by tolan-b ( 230077 ) on Wednesday March 03, 2004 @03:57PM (#8455044)
      Unfortunately money is everything when it comes to companies... It's all about shareholder value :(

      • Re:Greedy (Score:3, Insightful)

        by Yanray ( 686150 )
        You must not be a shareholder.. Other wise your post would look like: Fortunately money is everything when it comes to companies... It's all about shareholder value :)

      • Re:Greedy (Score:2, Interesting)

        by APL bigot ( 606126 )
        Unfortunately money is everything when it comes to companies... It's all about shareholder value:(

        No. NOW it's all about CEO greed. It wasn't always this way.
        Good thing AT&T didn't collect royalties on the transistor patent.

    • Re:Greedy (Score:3, Insightful)

      by Zardoz44 ( 687730 )
      They are working on a plan to allow other companies to use their technology. This is what the patent is. I agree that many modern patents are crap, but since I can't read this one, I'm going to give their press-release the benefit of the doubt.

      This company spent loads of research money and invented a new material. They published their results and patented the procedure. Now, for a limited period, they get to make their money back by selling the right to use it.

      It's easy for you to say "money ain't ever

      • Re:Greedy (Score:5, Insightful)

        by addie ( 470476 ) on Wednesday March 03, 2004 @04:34PM (#8455502)
        I do understand what they're trying to do. My problem is with the fact that there have been researchers the world over working on carbon nano-tubes for years, using different methods and achieving different results.

        I suppose the patent process will distinguish what is what, but is a carbon nanotube a carbon nanotube, no matter what process was used to produce it? What I'm saying is, does the patent apply to the end result or the process itself?

        I just don't want to see such a valuable invention huddled away in a proprietary corner.

        • Re:Greedy (Score:2, Interesting)

          by Anonymous Coward

          My problem is with the fact that there have been researchers the world over working on carbon nano-tubes for years, using different methods and achieving different results.

          The question is: would they have done so if their employers didn't think they were going to get a return on their investment?

          The question becomes even more relevent when the research is so expensive garage inventors can't do it.

          • I, actually, own a patent on multi-atomic carbon molecules of all kinds, such as ... carbon nanotubes. Actually carbon nanotubes were patented in like 1900 by someone who didn't know what they were. That patent has since expired. Someone is misinterpreting things here.

        • Re:Greedy (Score:3, Insightful)

          by Zardoz44 ( 687730 )
          Essentially we agree. This could be valid, but it depends on what the patent is actually on. The process or the tubes? I'm assuming the process, but we've seen some bad patents before.
        • What I think might be going on is that they have been unable to conjure up the research results to base their stake preeminently in this new burgeoning field. Their studies probably show that there is very promising work going on elsewhere and they are making a business decision to equalize a slower progress.
        • Isn't there some version of this in nature? Just wondering, because if there is, they can only patent a process to make a nanotube, not the nanotube itself. Its like they can patent the making of polyester, but not silk.

          • My girlfriend just said that she sees a carbon-based nanotube all the time, but for the life of me I've got no idea what she's talking about; she doesn't work in a physics lab or anything.

            Oh, wait...

      • Re:Greedy (Score:5, Interesting)

        by Goldsmith ( 561202 ) on Wednesday March 03, 2004 @05:53PM (#8456499)
        I work in a nanotube lab. We don't use any of the methods developed at NEC. As you said, you don't know the details of this patent, so it seems reasonable. Well, allow me to enlighten you.

        They did not invent a new material. They turned on their microscope and found it. Nanotubes are simply a stable phase of carbon. They went through the trouble of trying to grow them, but if they hadn't they still would have found them, because the microscope stage they were using comes covered in them. You can't have any form of amorphous carbon (i.e. coal) without having some nanotubes.

        So, they can patent the use of ANY carbon nanotube, in ANY device?

        There is a patent for nanotubes as wires, and one for using nanotubes as semiconductors. These are basic facts of physics, provable in a couple of pages of work, not the result of experimentation or laboratory prowess. Are companies allowed to patent "silicon is a semiconductor" or "copper is a conductor"?

        Sure, these companies could patent a specific growth technique. In a few months, there will be a dozen papers on how to do it better. Some people can do this stuff better than they can. There are a lot of hard working, smart people in this field who don't want to work for the NECs or IBMs. Rather than compete, the large labs leverage bogus patents to use OUR inventions for free.

        No one has a patent on diamond or even things like superfluid helium, to have a patent on a specific phase of an element is absurd!
        • You still haven't enlightened me though. I do realize that I simplified the scenario, but blatent uprising against patents because one news report was misleading is not justified. You need to find the patent and decide then whether this is a patent on a material or a procedure.

          If people are including nanotubes in their products because of work these guy did, then let them enforce their patent. If you came up with a better stainless steel, wouldn't you want to patent the method so the big companies couldn'

        • Re:Greedy (Score:5, Interesting)

          by meburke ( 736645 ) on Wednesday March 03, 2004 @07:28PM (#8457711)
          Interesting post. We are beginning to see more of "Intellectual-Property-as-a-dynamic-system." The game is to put obstacle in your competitor's way to maintain an advantage for yourself. The Asian countries play the game differently from the Western countries, and it's worth reading a book like, "The Asian Mind Game" by Chin-Ning Chu to see the difference. IMO, companies and individuals should be compensated for their intellectual achievements and research, but there ought to be a penalty for applying for a frivolous patent. (Interestingly enough, in Japan it's customary for a company suing another company to post a bond that will compensate the defendant if the lawsuit doesn't prevail. It is sometime done in the US, but the argument against it is that it is an unfair obstacle for those seeking justice through the courts.) The US derives an enormous benefit from patents. Billions of dollars are entering the US through channels not tracked by the "Balance of trade" figures as a result of licensing agreements with other nations. Japan licensed millions of dollars worth of technology and improved on it, and is still paying enormous amounts of money in license fees. Remember penicillin? The knowledge was put in the public domain and languished for 40 years because no companies felt they could afford to tool up to produce it since they would never have any competitive advantage. If it wasn't for WWII, penicillin production might not have gotten started. I don't resent the ease with which a company can apply and file a patent, but I resent the hell out of the high costs of challenging or defending a patent. Mike

        • There are a lot of hard working, smart people in this field who don't want to work for the NECs or IBMs. Rather than compete, the large labs leverage bogus patents to use OUR inventions for free.

          And that gets right to the point about why large companies agressively patent everything. If NEC were to even vaguely ponder licensing those patents to IBM, IBM would merely barter its 89 bazillion materials science patents-- 32 gagillion of which NEC and everyone else is infringing by breathing. NEC and IBM am

        • Nano-tubes are an essential component to making an incredibly large super-structure (like a space elevator), right? Supposedly used in the creation of self-assembly super-tensile solids?

        • Re:Greedy (Score:4, Informative)

          by Anonymous Coward on Thursday March 04, 2004 @07:06AM (#8461615)
          I am working in a nanotube lab, too. There are lots of patents out there, describing specific methods of nanotube production. The oldest nanotube patent so far goes back to 1985. It was a US patent of a company sitting in Massachusetts. No joke, this is 6 years before the "invention" of nanotubes by NEC. They simply called it carbon nanofibrils but not carbon nanotubes. But essentially, it is the same material. So, even if it might be possible to patent nanotubes as such (maybe in Japan only) their patent is at least questionable. CNI is another company which owns nanotube synthesis patents and do not need to rely on those patents by NEC.

    • Re:Greedy (Score:1, Interesting)

      by Anonymous Coward
      Even Edison patented the lightbulb.

      A good question is did their patents seem obvious before they were filed? I don't know, I'm not familiar with the field. But if all Nanotube research is based on their work, they should be paid. Money ain't nothing either.

    • They should take the high road (Score:1, Informative)

      by Anonymous Coward
      Example: Daimler-Benz (before they became Daimler-Chrysler) developed and patented the airbag. They have never enforced the patent.
    • Nanotube shoelaces? That's such a cool idea! Seriously, I would pay $20 a pair.

      And no, I'm not trying to make the parent poster sound stupid by being sarcastic - I actually think that nanotube shoelaces would be a good idea. They would never wear out, and be kind of cool in a high-tech geeky kind of way. And people don't mind paying stupid money for clothes, so I think the market's there.

      And given that shoelaces are pretty short compared to, say, a space elevator, I'd say that this is one of the sooner
      • Er...

        Nanotubes are much stronger than steel, so won't they
        slice through the grommets; and the polyurethane uppers
        of your shoes; and the meat and bones of your feet?

        [ Dr. Wierd ]
        "Gentlemen! Behold! My new ... stumps!"

        >;K

  • Micropayment (Score:5, Funny)

    by AtariAmarok ( 451306 ) on Wednesday March 03, 2004 @03:56PM (#8455036)
    I'd be happy to give them a micropayment for their nanotubes.

  • I got it... (Score:5, Funny)

    by hookedup ( 630460 ) on Wednesday March 03, 2004 @03:57PM (#8455050)
    New corporate motto "holding up progress, one patent at a time"

  • Obligatory SCO joke (Score:5, Funny)

    by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday March 03, 2004 @04:00PM (#8455087)
    "That will be $699 per micron of nanotube length. Pay up now. Make it snappy: we have an auto-parts company to sue tomorrow."

  • tricky (Score:5, Insightful)

    by ajagci ( 737734 ) on Wednesday March 03, 2004 @04:02PM (#8455123)
    I think it used to be the case that (for the most part) you couldn't claim a patent on a substance, only on its manufacture and its applications. That seems pretty sensible to me.

    Sadly, that principle seems to have eroded away, and there are many patents on substances now that cover all future applications and ways of manufacturing them. Seems to me like that runs against the purpose of the patent system: to encourage useful innovation. I mean, if you can just claim all possible ways of manufacturing a substance and all possible ways of using it by just describing the substance, why would anybody else want to invest in finding better ways of manufacturing it or new applications for it?

    In any case, this particular patent should run out in less than a decade, so it probably won't be all that significant.
    • I think it used to be the case that (for the most part) you couldn't claim a patent on a substance

      I'd like a patent on arsenic so I could sue RIAA for all that pop music they produce.

    • Re:tricky (Score:5, Interesting)

      by Muhammar ( 659468 ) on Wednesday March 03, 2004 @10:16PM (#8459337)
      1. You can patent substance if it is new invented material (which does not occur naturaly, in plants or corrals, for example). The tiniest possible modification of the naturaly occuring substance can be patented, as long as you can prove that it does not occur naturaly and you can tell the differnece. (And fake up some argument why it is better than the original stuff)
      2. You can patent process of manufacture of anything. This kind of patents is not easy to enforce because it is very easy to modify the patented procedure with a redundant (or insignificant)change and claim it is essential and non-obvious. And companies are not required to disclose their processes, so it is hard to prove they are using the patented method.
      3. You can patent the application of the material - the end use. The question then is how obvious or non-obvious the application realy is and what kind of practical examples of the application patent has - proving feasibility of the idea.

      I would expect the future litigation involving patents from the second and third category. They need a lot of money to hire big-ass lawyers for bullying other companies. But sometimes it is easier to pay few% on royalities than risking lawsuit. (Unsettled lawsuits, frivolous or not, can make investors nervous, and licencing in the technology looks like prudent investment)

      I used to work for a small biotech company which claimed to have key patents for generation and using combinatorial libraries of small drug-like chemicals for pharma research. Everybody is now using the technology, and our company got nothing out of it except for a harrasment kind of "due dilligence" lawsuit from one of the minority investors, which did cost us few millions on lawyers.

      • Re:tricky (Score:3, Informative)

        by ajagci ( 737734 )
        You can patent substance if it is new invented material

        As I was saying: you can now. You didn't use to be able to. Patents used to be on processes, methods, or applications, not on substances.

        The reason for the change was exactly (2): manufacturers were crying "foul". But the cure is apparently worse than the disease, since the new rules clearly stifle innovation.

        I used to work for a small biotech company which claimed to have key patents for generation and using combinatorial libraries of small dru

  • hmm... (Score:3, Funny)

    by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday March 03, 2004 @04:23PM (#8455357)
    I have a patent on a device that intakes mostly oxygen and the discharges carbon dioxide. It also has the ability to intake organic matter and discharges non used waste matter...

    Now for the law suites... You will all be receiving a letter from my lawyer shortly

  • The process or the tubes themselves? (Score:3, Insightful)

    by jabberjaw ( 683624 ) on Wednesday March 03, 2004 @04:45PM (#8455673)
    I did not seem to find the articles that clear, are they claiming to patent a specific process for making carbon nanotubes or are they caliming to patent the nanotubes themselves, regardless of the process used to generate them? The former does not bother me, however the latter is rather troubling.

  • In other news... (Score:4, Funny)

    by RalphBNumbers ( 655475 ) on Wednesday March 03, 2004 @04:47PM (#8455692)
    DeBeers, inspired by NEC's recent move, pattents the diamond latice crystal structure.

    They have announced they intend to sue all companies who profit from their crystal, starting with synthetic diamond makers who use their crystal shape in carbon, then moving on into the semiconductor industry (where their pattented crystal structure is widely used in silicon).
    • Oh well, we'll just have to use GaAs or some other semiconductor with a zincblende structure. Makes the chips sooo much faster and sooo much more expensive...

  • They may have a point (Score:5, Informative)

    by tsa ( 15680 ) on Wednesday March 03, 2004 @04:48PM (#8455708) Homepage
    If they patented the structures they show in the images on their website (I can't read Japanese so I'm not sure) then they may have a point (and the world may have a big problem). On the other hand, carbon nanotubes are things that are easily formed in nature (it's the purification process that's complicated, and of course the processes involved in making carbon nanotubes with specified properties). Therefore patenting carbon nanotubes is like patenting iron, or silicon oxide. And I'm not sure if such a patent will hold in court.

  • What really bugs me about patents... (Score:5, Interesting)

    by Gadzinka ( 256729 ) <rrw@hell.pl> on Wednesday March 03, 2004 @04:53PM (#8455781) Journal
    What really bugs me about patents isn't the ``obvious inventions'' like ``internet auctions'' or ``method of combining two numbers in the way that the end result consists of the sum of the numbers''.

    I really can't understand patents for engineering methods and devices that cannot be build at the time of patent's granting. IMO working prototype should be a part of patent application. Lack of working prototype means that you don't know how to build it, hence you shouldn't own the patent in the first place.

    Otherwise what's to stop me from patenting ``cold fusion'' and sitting on those patents while bribing politicians to extend the patent expiration date ad infinitum and waiting for someone else to actually make it possible?

    Robert

    PS Mark my words: patents' expiration extension will be the next big thing like the copyrights extension is now. ``Meat and metal'' technologies didn't need it (they usually were obsolete long before patent's expiration), but software and business methods patents are a perfect target for such campaign.

    • Re:What really bugs me about patents... (Score:1, Insightful)

      by Anonymous Coward
      I really can't understand patents for engineering methods and devices that cannot be build at the time of patent's granting. IMO working prototype should be a part of patent application. Lack of working prototype means that you don't know how to build it, hence you shouldn't own the patent in the first place.
      Well it makes sense actually. Say you designed a new type of engine: you do the modelling and the theoretical analysis. Turns out it's got great potential. But BUT before investing any money in buildi
      • Then perhaps two types of patents should be issued: a temporary prototype-level patent, which would only last for the few years necessary to develop a working protoype; and a long-term patent which would operate as standard patents do now, only the patent-holder is now guaranteed to not just be 'sitting on the patent.'

        I wonder if a system like this is feasible.

  • I'm not going to worry until... (Score:3, Funny)

    by dbirchall ( 191839 ) on Wednesday March 03, 2004 @04:57PM (#8455835) Journal
    ...NEC alleges that IBM improperly copied carbon nanotubes into Linux. :)

  • Candlelight vigils no longer free (Score:5, Funny)

    by Jtheletter ( 686279 ) on Wednesday March 03, 2004 @05:17PM (#8456064)
    In other news today, a candlelight vigil for a young boy with terminal lung cancer was broken up by NEOCorp private police when participants refused to pay a licensing fee for the billions of carbon nanotubes they were blantantly producing by burning wax.
    When asked for comment a NEOCorp spokesman said, "It really is too bad about that kid dying or whatever, but we've got to focus on the real issue here, our IP was being flagrantly abused in public with no monetary compensation to us, and we are not going to sit idly by and allow the screaming naked masses to continue to profit from the light and heat given off as a byproduct of producing NEOCorp's patented molecules."
    When asked for comment on why NEOCorp felt it had the right to patent naturally occuring substances that it merely found rather than explicitly created, the original reporter was rapidly bludgeoned to near-death and taken to NEOCorp's multitrillion dollar headquarters (previously Japan) for immediate Company Re-Education.

  • the NEC Space Elevator?

  • Materials patents? (Score:5, Funny)

    by El ( 94934 ) on Wednesday March 03, 2004 @05:27PM (#8456195)
    So, can I patent gold, silver, and platinum, and start demanding fees from Jewelry and precious metal manufacturers? Don't carbon nanotubes ever occur in nature? Seems to me the rule was that they could patent their method for building them, but if you could figure out another way to do it, it was fair game. Now NEC is claiming it is impossible to make a carbon nanotube without infringing their methods? What, is everybody infringing on step 1: "First, take some carbon..."?!?
    • I ain't no patent laywer.... but...

      As I understand patents [which isn't saying much] you have to infringe on the patent as a whole not in part. Obviously there is wiggle room about the steps [e.g. change a 6ml of water to 6.0001ml won't make your process different enough].

      So all another company has todo is find a significantly different way to make the tubes and voila. Or just duke it out by the monkey bars after school with the NEC staff :-)

      Tom

  • references (Score:5, Insightful)

    by Avishalom ( 648759 ) <vish@cs.hujiCOFFEE.ac.il minus caffeine> on Wednesday March 03, 2004 @05:42PM (#8456388) Homepage Journal
    1. Dave Barry [davebarry.com] wrote an important piece [miami.com] concerning nanotube application (in layperson's terms , carbon nanotubes are nanotubes made of carbon)
    It also talks about those dummy close door elevator buttons (whose cousins, the crosswalk buttons were talked about a lot)

    2. the original title was Dave Barry: Lawyers needed, many, to test space elevator [iht.com] , i'll get to that in a second.


    OK let sum it up
    youv'e got

    a - a women suing her successfull son for slander (or ST) trying to get rich.
    b - a women pretrnding to fall over in a day after Xmas DVD sale to sue the company (didn't it turn out that it was the 16th time she sued them ... (while being employed))
    c - companies patenting facts, ideas , linux code.
    d- a women suing (and winning) a department store claiming she sprained her arm tripping over a toddler (her own child)
    e - a man suing his neighbor (and getting 5 figures) claiming the dog attacked him (which is true except that "he started it" by repeatedly shooting the dog with a BB gun)
    (i appologize for not citing the reference but you can google for outrageous lawsuits to see that i downtoned)
    These are syndromes of a society with too many lawyers, coupled with distorted get rich quick ideas


     ------ why don't all these people just meet up with wealthy nigerian businessmen/inheritors and split the $20,000,000,023.85 that just needs a resourceful individual like yourself ..

    • Re:references (Score:3, Informative)

      by Blakey Rat ( 99501 )
      Item d on your list is well-known as a completely fake urban legend. See this Snopes page:

      http://www.snopes.com/legal/lawsuits.asp

      None of the lawsuits in that story have any truth to them.

      • Re:references (Score:2, Interesting)

        by Avishalom ( 648759 )
        sorry , i got carried away so is my (e) (same rebuttal) you are right
      • If I wasn't feeling so damn lazy this morning, I'd look up the rest of them. Even such "frivilous lawsuit" examples as aren't total urban legends are often exaggerated, probably originally sourced to statements by the corporate legal team. Some lawsuits are, of course, frivilous. But I bet it's a lot rarer than corporate execs and their hirelings in the gov't would like you to believe. For a example of this, there's the classic "woman sues McDonalds for millions over spilled hot coffee". For the actual

    • Re:references (Score:3, Insightful)

      by RedWizzard ( 192002 )

      These are syndromes of a society with too many lawyers, coupled with distorted get rich quick ideas

      No, these are the results of a system where the rewards of successfully suing someone outweigh the cost incurred by the victim (in terms of suffering or whatever the suit is about) to a large degree. The reason for that is that punitive damages are awarded to the plaintiff, along with the compensatory damages. But punitive damages are intended to punish the offender, not reward the victim. If punitive da

      • Then how does the victim of actual negligence or intent recover medical or material costs? You're right that there is a reward here for greedy behavior, but that reward (punitive damages) is intended to assist the victim through difficult consequences of the defendent's actions.

        • Re:references (Score:3, Interesting)

          by RedWizzard ( 192002 )

          Then how does the victim of actual negligence or intent recover medical or material costs? You're right that there is a reward here for greedy behavior, but that reward (punitive damages) is intended to assist the victim through difficult consequences of the defendent's actions.

          No, punitive damages are intended to punish the offender. It is the other component, compensatory damages, that are intended to compensate the victim. A victim should never end up worse off, as far as it possible to make up for

          • Okay. I'll accept that. Thank you for the information. [thinks a moment] But then what will prevent lawyers from dreaming up ways to inflate compensatory damages and get us to exactly the same place once punitive damages no longer go to the victim?
            • Possibly, yes, although justifying very large payments would be a lot more difficult with compensatory damages (compared to punitive damages). Also, currently compensatory damages are decided before punitive damages so the pressure to inflate them is already there. I believe damages are generally set by the jury, with input from the judge, so there are balances there.
              • Many lawyers (IMO , this is not checked) get paid a certain percent of the damages rewarded to their client, sometimes as much as 50%.
                putting a limit on this amount might help counter the waves of BS-lawsuits (for lack of a better name.) (though i realize this is unlikely)

                another point that counter such suits (and can be carried out by the courts quite easily) is to charge the plantiff with both sides' legal fees in case his suit was deemed by the court unjust , and declared to be one without basis.
                Thi

  • Hmmm... (Score:4, Insightful)

    by Transcendent ( 204992 ) on Wednesday March 03, 2004 @06:30PM (#8456908)
    On that note, I claim to hold the patent on dihydrogen monoxide. So all governments, companies, or any living organism must purchase a license from me before using my patented chemical compound. If you are found to be in violation of this, I will sue you for $1,000 per molecule found in your body.

    More seriously, could this "patent" be voided is nanotubes are found to occur in nature or as a biproduct from another chemical process?

    I would think that you couldn't patent nature or accidental biproducts... but this is kinda rediculous so I could be wrong.

    In another thought... who are these idiots who keep handing out rediculous patents? Shouldn't there be moderation?

  • NEC does not have US patent on nanotubes (Score:5, Informative)

    by Rene_Daley ( 677214 ) on Wednesday March 03, 2004 @06:51PM (#8457232)
    As far as I can tell, NEC does not have a patent in the US on nanotubes themselves. NEC does have 5 US patents involving nanotubes:
    1 6,331,690 Process for producing single-wall carbon nanotubes uniform in diameter and laser ablation apparatus used therein
    2 6,157,043 Solenoid comprising a compound nanotube and magnetic generating apparatus using the compound nanotube
    3 5,698,175 Process for purifying, uncapping and chemically modifying carbon nanotubes
    4 5,641,466 Method of purifying carbon nanotubes
    5 5,627,140 Enhanced flux pinning in superconductors by embedding carbon nanotubes with BSCCO materials

    None of these patents cover the existence of nanotubes -- but the patents do cover various methods of creating nanotubes. I found 118 US patents which mention carbon nanotubes in the abstract to the patent at the US Patent and Trademark Office [uspto.gov].

    There are other patents which concern creation of carbon nanotubes which predate NEC's patents. For example: 5,482,601 Method and device for the production of carbon nanotubes.

    Accordingly, I doubt that NEC has a patent on carbon nanotubes themselves. Instead, it appears that NEC has some patents on methods for manufacturing carbon nanotubes. If these methods are more efficient than other methods, I do not have any problem with NEC selling licenses to use their processes.

  • For some reason, the article reminds me of the South Park episode where the kids tried to build a ladder to heaven so they could find Kenny.

    Nanotubes have nothing to do with ladders to heaven do they?

    • Re:Time to patent that Oxygen Molecule I guess (Score:1, Insightful)

      by Anonymous Coward
      eh, you just need to patent something similar and then sue for all of the people using something that may be confused with the thing you've patented...

      these days, everyones confused though and getting more so.
  • Guess this would effect the SE too... NEC would become like "the Company" in Aliens if the Space Elevator ever was built.

  • *look i sold a license* (Score:3, Interesting)

    by MrLint ( 519792 ) on Thursday March 04, 2004 @04:01PM (#8467214) Journal
    I am getting more and more dismayed by this practice of corporations saying that they have sold a license for a patent/copyright/trademark/whatever and use that as a PR gimmick to lend public credibility to the validity of their claim.

    Its seems to be the PR equivalent equivalent of 'if i say it enough time it must be true'

    Every time a company uses this tactic i become wary of it and i lose respect and good will for it.
    • Not only that. With all the goings on in patenting and so, I find it very disturbing that manufacturers of beauty products alwys must advertise with 'patented this' and 'patented that' to give an issue of credibility to their stuff. With the way it is going now, patents don't give credibility to anything.

  • Here are the USPTO patents on carbon nanotubes (Score:3, Informative)

    by azav ( 469988 ) on Thursday March 04, 2004 @04:05PM (#8467261) Homepage Journal
    http://www.firstgov.gov/fgsearch/index.jsp?dep=t&n r=20&de=detailed&mw0=carbon%20nanotubes&mt0=phrase &ms0=must&in0=domain&dom0=www.uspto.gov&db=www&rn= 1&parsed=true

  • let me go find some prior art... *Looks in old chimney*

  • Avoid burning stuff? (Score:3, Insightful)

    by Tailhook ( 98486 ) on Thursday March 04, 2004 @08:44PM (#8470816)
    Will I need a license to build a campfire? I understand that burning stuff causes buckyballs and bits of nanotubes and whatnot to appear. Am I not, therefore, guilty of violating NEC's patents by "manufacturing" their product without a license?

    Just wondering. I'd hate to violate the sanctity of this most worthy collection of patents...

Slashdot Top Deals

The Tao is like a glob pattern: used but never used up. It is like the extern void: filled with infinite possibilities.

Close