Slashdot Mirror
NEC Demands License Fees For Carbon Nanotubes
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."
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.
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 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.
1. Dave Barry wrote an important piece concerning nanotube application (in layperson's terms , carbon nanotubes are nanotubes made of carbon)
... (while being employed))
..
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 , 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
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
-- Avishalom is usually vish
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?
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.
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 building your new engine, investors will require that you're idea be protected. So in a way, you're initial investment in your invention is protected in such a way that somebody else with loads of money can't steal your idea. I told you it made sense...
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.
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?
Eat at Joe's.
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...
Maw! Fire up the karma burner!