Why Geim Never Patented Graphene
gbrumfiel writes "As we discussed on Tuesday, Andre Geim won this year's Nobel prize in physics for graphene, but he never patented it. In an interview with Nature News, he explains why: 'We considered patenting; we prepared a patent and it was nearly filed. Then I had an interaction with a big, multinational electronics company. I approached a guy at a conference and said, "We've got this patent coming up, would you be interested in sponsoring it over the years?" It's quite expensive to keep a patent alive for 20 years. The guy told me, "We are looking at graphene, and it might have a future in the long term. If after ten years we find it's really as good as it promises, we will put a hundred patent lawyers on it to write a hundred patents a day, and you will spend the rest of your life, and the gross domestic product of your little island, suing us." That's a direct quote.'"
Can't they just patent it anyway, and sue him instead?
Do that, and he'll spend the rest of his life and gross income fighting interminable libel suits.
Can we get a "-1 Wrong" moderation option?
I don't get it, he is Russian born and works in Manchester, England. Are they saying $2.2 trillion (nominal GDP of England in 2006) isn't enough to win a patent war? My god, if that's the case, then what is?
It also has the largest surface-to-weight ratio: with one gram of graphene you can cover several football pitches (in Manchester, you know, we measure surface area in football pitches).
Can someone put this in terms of American Football fields please? Or perhaps school buses will work...thanks.
We should start a new Slashdot and return control to the geeks. It actually wouldn't be that hard to get some users to
You are very good at detecting sarcasm. Really. You are.
<sig> </sig>
What are you talking about? He missed it completely.