DailyDirt: Smaller, Better, Faster Wireless

from the urls-we-dig-up dept

The term wireless is a bit strange because it classifies a whole range of modern technology by the lack of a wire. Cordless technologies are getting better all the time, but the reliability and transfer speeds of wires are still superior in many ways. Thankfully, there are plenty of folks working on making wireless equipment that is faster and smaller, pushing the capabilities of wireless transmissions to make mobile devices better and better. Here are just a few notable milestones.

• Transmitting a wireless signal at 2.5 terabits per second isn't anywhere near commonplace yet, but maybe someday wireless spectrum will have almost unlimited capacity. Networking equipment that can handle both orbital angular momentum (OAM) and spin angular momentum (SAM) modulation will have to get out of research labs first. [url]
• Antennas can be the largest component in a wireless device, but a hemispherical antenna design might approach fundamental size limits. Phones might not get any smaller, but there could be more room for batteries.... [url]
• Antennas made of thin films of graphene could allow for terabit per second data transfers over short distances. Graphene is still a tricky material to work with, but as researchers work out how to make useful electronics from graphene, there could be some amazingly small wireless devices in the future. [url]

If you'd like to read more awesome and interesting stuff, check out this unrelated (but not entirely random!) Techdirt post via StumbleUpon.

Filed Under: antennas, graphene, spectrum, terabit, wireless

Why This Year's Physics Nobel Winner Never Patented Graphene

from the keeping-the-legal-profession-employed dept

Slashdot points us to an interview with Andre Geim, who won this year's Nobel Prize for physics for his work on graphene. As part of the interview, they asked him about patenting graphene:

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.

It's certainly not an anti-patent statement (he sounds like he'd happily patent some uses of graphene), but it is illustrative of how companies view patents these days.

Filed Under: andre geim, graphene, patents