Tag Archives: 2010 Nobel Prize in Physics

UK research not applying for enough patents?

As I understand it, patent and copyright regimes were instituted to stimulate innovation by guaranteeing that an inventor or a ‘creative’ would receive compensation for a particular piece of work during a limited period of time. It was not intended to limit competition or provide funds in perpetuity for either the corporations that happen to hold the copyright or patent or for the inventor’s or creator’s descendents as seems to be the case these days. (I wrote extensively about patents being used to limit competition in my Oct. 31, 2011 posting titled, Patents as weapons and obstacles.)

To be very clear, I am not arguing against patent and copyright regimes but I am suggesting that the excesses of today’s regimes are strangling innovation. Given my particular take on the situation, I read the Dec. 16, 2011 news item on Nanowerk with mixed feelings. From the news item,

As the UK government invests into supporting graphene research, the patent activity of UK universities lags behind that of their global peers according to research by CambridgeIP [intellectual property] published in Nature Materials (“Exploiting carbon flatland” [public access as of Dec. 17, 2011]). [emphasis mine]

“Since 2007 there has been a rapid increase in the rate of global patent filings around graphene. And patents are central to business models and business strategies in many key application sectors for graphene developments, such as semiconductors and biotech.” said Quentin Tannock (Chairman, CambridgeIP) “Despite playing host to Nobel Prize-winning graphene researchers, UK academic institutions hold far fewer graphene patents than their peers in China, South Korea and the USA. This raises the serious question of how ‘UK plc’ will reap commercial returns on its significant cash investments into academic research into graphene.” [emphasis mine]

It’s understandable that they (UK) would want to reap the rewards of their research and the investments in that research. It does, however, get a little confusing for me here (from the news item),

“One of the striking features of the graphene patent landscape is what is not present. Andre Geim, one of the two winners of the 2010 Nobel Prize in Physics “for groundbreaking experiments regarding the two-dimensional material graphene” is not listed as an inventor on any published graphene patent application. The University of Manchester has applied for significantly fewer patents than its global peers in graphene research.” [emphases mine]

I’m not sure why only Andre Gheim is mentioned as the inventor since he shared the 2010 Nobel prize with Konstantin Novoselov. Also, does one need to mention the inventor in a patent? Is one  still required to reference Alexander Graham Bell for a patent on a phone of some sort?

I got curious about CambridgeIP since the author of the article in Nature Materials, Quentin Tannock is Chairman of the company. Here’s the company’s mission statement (from the CambridgeIP website),

CambridgeIP’s mission is to accelerate the development, deployment and dissemination of valuable technologies.
We achieve this by working with our clients in the public and private sectors to create and deliver winning technology and IP strategies, and by developing thought leadership in technology and innovation.
We help them build and monetize intellectual assets, develop commercial and R&D strategies and roadmaps, and deploy technologies to maximum impact. We also provide our clients with resources including global-leading access to patent data, science literature, analysis tools and evidence-based insights drawn from our extensive technology and IP strategy experience. [emphasis mine]

I gather CambridgeIP provides patent data and other resources through a company called Boliven which is possibly a CambridgeIP spinoff or affiliate. (Both CambridgeIP and Boliven are listed as sources for the news item.) The About page on the Boliven website does not make the nature of the relationship explicit although it’s existence is obvious,

Boliven is a leading online information portal for IP, R&D and business development professionals in science and technology intensive industries.

With over 100 million peer-reviewed documents spanning patents, journal articles, press releases and other data sources, Boliven enables professionals to rapidly identify novel technologies, clients, partners, commercialisation opportunities and ideas.

Boliven has developed a robust set of free search, analytics, and export tools to help you capitalize on our 100+ million public records and peer-reviewed documents.

For example, Boliven offers members access to one of the world’s largest free patent search engines, with over 60 million records from around the world. Our analytics tools help you detect patterns and relationships in the data through easy-to-understand visualizations, charts, and graphs. Our exporting tools help you take your analysis in-house, through Word of Excel or other productivity applications. Our company profiles section provides a snapshot of the latest research, business and legal activity by the world’s leading technology companies

Many of our best ideas come from our members, so feel free to offer your recommendations on things you’d like to see on Boliven. Contact us on boliven@cambridgeip.com. [emphases mine]

Herein is the source of my mixed feelings regarding the news item. As I noted earlier in this posting, there should be a return on investment (ROI) but this news item and the article it refers to certainly seem self-serving given that CambridgeIP and Boliven market their services to the very people/institutions they feel should be applying for more patents.

Nano jobs, bits, and bobs

There’s a postdoctoral position at Penn State Center for Nanoscale Science (from the NISE [Nanoscale Informal Science Education] Net October newsletter),

Nano Employment Opportunity: Postdoctoral Position in Education and Outreach with Penn State MRSEC

The Penn State Center for Nanoscale Science, a NSF-supported Materials Research Science and Engineering Center (MRSEC), has a postdoctoral position available in education and outreach. The successful candidate will join a team developing and presenting education and outreach programs materials including nanoscience curriculum for K-12 students and teachers among other tasks. Interested applicants should go to the Penn State job opportunity site and scroll down to the Postdoctoral Position – Center for Nanoscale Science (MRSEC Center) listing for more details and application instructions.

The newsletter also features its monthly nano haiku,

Teeny-tiny stuff,
you act so different now.
Wish you were still big.

by Leigha Horton of the Science Museum of Minnesota.

Thanks to someone on Twitter (sorry, I don’t remember who) I found  Nature journalist Geoff Brumfiel’s interview (published Oct. 7, 2010) with one of the winners (Andre Geim) of the 2010 Nobel Prize for Physics. Given my interest in intellectual property, here’s Geim’s response to a question about patents,

You haven’t yet patented graphene. Why is that?

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.

I considered this arrogant comment, and I realized how useful it was. There was no point in patenting graphene at that stage. You need to be specific: you need to have a specific application and an industrial partner. Unfortunately, in many countries, including this one, people think that applying for a patent is an achievement. In my case it would have been a waste of taxpayers’ money.

This is a very engaging and funny (particularly Geim’s response to the final question: “Finally, are you one of those Nobel prizewinners who is going to go crazy now that you’ve won?” of the interview.

Graphene, the Nobel Prize, and levitating frogs

As you may have heard, two  scientists (Andre Geim and Konstantin Novoselov) who performed groundbreaking research on graphene [Nov. 29, 2010: I corrected this entry Nov. 26, 2010 which originally stated that these researchers discovered graphene] have been awarded the 2010 Nobel Prize for Physics. In honour of their award, the journal, Nature Materials, is giving free access to  a 2007 article authored by the scientists. From the news item on Nanowerk,

The 2007 landmark article in Nature Materials “The rise of graphene” by the just announced winners of the 2010 Nobel prize in physics, Andre Geim and Kosta Novoselov, has now been made available as a free access article.

Abstract:

Graphene is a rapidly rising star on the horizon of materials science and condensed-matter physics. This strictly two-dimensional material exhibits exceptionally high crystal and electronic quality, and, despite its short history, has already revealed a cornucopia of new physics and potential applications, which are briefly discussed here.

Here’s a description of the scientists and their work from the BBC News article by Paul Rincon,

Prof Geim, 51, is a Dutch national while Dr Novoselov, 36, holds British and Russian citizenship. Both are natives of Russia and started their careers in physics there.

The Nobels are valued at 10m Swedish kronor (£900,000; 1m euros; $1.5m).

They first worked together in the Netherlands before moving to the UK. They were based at the University of Manchester when they published their groundbreaking research paper on graphene in October 2004.

Dr Novoselov is among the youngest winners of a prize that normally goes to scientists with decades of experience.

Graphene is a form of carbon. It is a flat layer of carbon atoms tightly packed into a two-dimensional honeycomb arrangement.

Because it is so thin, it is also practically transparent. As a conductor of electricity it performs as well as copper, and as a conductor of heat it outperforms all other known materials.

The unusual electronic, mechanical and chemical properties of graphene at the molecular scale promise ultra-fast transistors for electronics.

Some scientists have predicted that graphene could one day replace silicon – which is the current material of choice for transistors.

It could also yield incredibly strong, flexible and stable materials and find applications in transparent touch screens or solar cells.

Geim and Novoselov first isolated fine sheets of graphene from the graphite which is widely used in pencils.

A layer of graphite 1mm thick actually consists of three million layers of graphene stacked on top of one another.

The technique that Geim and Novoselov used to create the first graphene sheets both amuses and fascinates me (from the article by Kit Eaton on the Fast Company website),

The two scientists came up with the technique that first resulted in samples of graphene–peeling individual atoms-deep sheets of the material from a bigger block of pure graphite. The science here seems almost foolishly simple, but it took a lot of lateral thinking to dream up, and then some serious science to investigate: Geim and Novoselo literally “ripped” single sheets off the graphite by using regular adhesive tape. Once they’d confirmed they had grabbed micro-flakes of the material, Geim and Novoselo were responsible for some of the very early experiments into the material’s properties. Novel stuff indeed, but perhaps not so unexpected from a scientist (Geim) who the Nobel Committe notes once managed to make a frog levitate in a magnetic field.

I’ll get to the levitating frog in a minute but first the bit about using regular adhesive tape to peel off single sheets only atoms thick of graphite from a larger block of the stuff reminds me of how scientists at Northwestern University are using shrinky dinks (a child’s craft material) to create large scale nanopatterns cheaply (my Aug. 16, 2010 posting).

It’s reassuring to me that despite all of the high tech equipment that costs the earth, scientists still use fairly mundane, inexpensive objects to do some incredibly sophisticated work. The other thing I find reassuring is that Novoselov probably was not voted ‘most likely to be awarded a Nobel Prize’. Interestingly, Novoselov’s partner, Geim, was not welcomed into a physics career with open arms. From the news item on physoorg.com,

Konstantin Novoselov, the Russian-born physicist who shared this year’s Nobel prize, struggled with physics as a student and was awarded a handful of B grades, his university said Wednesday.

The Moscow Physics and Technology University (MFTI) posted report cards on its website for Novoselov, who at 36 won the Nobel prize for physics with his research partner Andre Geim.

The reports reveal that he gained a handful of B grades in his term reports for theoretical and applied physics from 1991 to 1994.

He was also not strong on physical education — a compulsory subject at Russian universities — gaining B grades. And while he now lives in Britain, he once gained a C grade for English.

The university also revealed documents on Nobel prize winner Geim, who studied at the same university from 1976 to 1982. His brilliant academic career was only marred by a few B-grades for Marxist political economy and English.

Geim was turned down when he applied first to another Moscow university specialising in engineering and physics, and worked as a machinist at a factory making electrical instruments for eight months.

Given the increasing emphasis on marks, in Canadian universities at least, I noticed that Novoselov was not a straight-A student. As for Geim, it seems the fact that his father was German posed a problem. (You can find more details in the physorg.com article.)

As for levitating frogs, I first found this information in particle physicist Jon Butterworth’s October 5, 2010 posting on his Guardian blog,

Geim is also well known (or as his web page puts it “notorious”) for levitating frogs. This is a demonstration of the peculiar fact that all materials have some magnetism, albeit very weak in most cases, and that if you put them in a high enough magnetic field you can see the effects – and make them fly.

Why frogs? Well, no frogs were harmed in the experiments. But also, magnetism is a hugely important topic in physics that can seem a little dry to students …

I hunted down a video of the levitating frog on youtube,

As a particle physicist, Butterworth notes that the graphene work is outside his area of expertise so if you’re looking for a good, general explanation with some science detail added in for good measure, I’d suggest reading his succinct description.