I suspect it's, in part, because humidity is low. The fab needs to tightly control humidity and temperature. Pulling water from air is energy intensive. Facilities team in the fab I used to work in said their most energy intensive days where the most humid days.
My intuition matches yours. It's abundant enough to find its way into alloys for jet engine blades at single digit percentages: https://www.thenakedscientists.com/articles/science-features... And if used in chips, you don't need to make the full substrate with this material, just a few hundred nanometers at the top, in the active area.
People don't have understanding of what expensive is. Even at hundreds or thousands of dollars per gram it could be pretty much irrelevant to the end result cost if you only need a layer that is couple nanometers in width.
Same fab, same experience. I would add that a deep understanding (and ability to explain) statistics was more critical than understanding the underlying device physics for most roles I encountered. Enormous amounts of noisy data, characterizing several hundred process steps, is harnessed to apply massive pressure on engineers to "fix" problems that might just be a statistical blip. Economic stakes of minor yield deviations are so high that you often have to act as if something might be wrong before signals reach statistical significance. I bailed after four years, but it was great experience to start my career.
Both suggest that this is a real area of concern. Folks have gotten complacent that Section 230 protects platform providers, but it is not clear that the protection extends to outputs from generative models, indeed one of the Supreme Court Justices implied that it would not in oral arguments for one of the recent Section 230 cases.
It would be wonderful if it was easy for most people to represent themselves. My sense is most people struggle to express themselves precisely and clearly enough to avoid being at a massive disadvantage to someone who can do so. To my untrained eye though, AI seems poised to get us there. What LLMs are doing for code, translating imprecise natural language expressions of intent into machine-readable, precise code, looks similar to what I do as a lawyer when translating between a client request and legal work product. Lots of filling in boilerplate defaults, some assumptions based on context, etc. Differences include that sometimes we engineer ambiguity into that work product, and we can assume an adversary will exploit plausible interpretations unfavorable to our side, but I see no reason AI won't be able to do that as well.
I see this sentiment a lot, and as an engineer-turned-lawyer, I've always found this to be intriguing but unsatisfactory. Certainly lots of transactional type work (contracts, estates) and maybe even basic adversarial work (parking tickets and fines?) could be greatly enhanced by AI/ML.
But I've asked clients this question and while they would love to not have to pay lawyers - if you ever put the thought in front of them and asked whether they actually want an AI to represent them in court, when stakes are high and there's a chance of losing... well, I've never met anyone who has said they willingly take that chance.
Some fields will also certainly never be AI-ified. Not a snowball's chance in hell (and I know it sounds like a cranky person talking) that lawyers and judges in criminal/constitutional trials will ever be "replaced" by AI. It has nothing to to with the possibilities of present and future technology, but everything to do with optics. Society is almost certainly never going to accept being judged and/or losing to AI and algorithms. Even if a person has a losing case they would want to make sure to hear it from a human rather than a machine.
> Not a snowball's chance in hell (and I know it sounds like a cranky person talking) that lawyers and judges in criminal/constitutional trials will ever be "replaced" by AI. It has nothing to to with the possibilities of present and future technology, but everything to do with optics.
Ha, you might like Pohl and Kornbluth's classic dystopian science fiction novel "Gladiator at Law", which I think was from the 1950s. There is a trial scene near the beginning where the prosecutor and defense spend a page or so addressing the jury box. Then (spoiler) the jury box flashes and whirs, and spits out the verdict.
I think you're failing to consider the selection bias in those who have had the chance to ask the question of. By definition your clients are people who are able to hire lawyers. They aren't the target market for robot lawyers, not for a long time.
I believe you have a rude awakening ahead.. resolve the roles in court to authority roles, and yes, none of the professionals will give up any authority; but the "work" of law, that is to study, consider, refute and prescribe, especially with citations and written works.. absolutely yes they are top on the list to be replaced by AI.
This means that, in the line of people to get paid out of those assets, you're not even at the front. Custodial accounts leave you with little protection.
Yes, but in practice, this is just an opening offer in a negotiation. Parties will typically counter with something like: depose me in my home town for no more than x hours, and I'll produce what docs I have if you sign a protective order that makes produced info attorney's-eyes-only, i.e., business people cannot review. Unlikely a court would require more than this.
That negotiation still requires lawyers. Overall less legal expense assuming it succeeds, but we're still talking about a 5-figure legal bill at minimum, which for a small startup is a big hit. The employee distraction will probably double the cost at least, so it's reasonable to expect they'll lose 6 figures on this, which is equivalent to hiring another employee.
A related issue is whether the availability of AI as a tool for creating innovation should raise the bar for non-obviousness. Both effects could make it harder to obtain patents.
The lawyers don't care, the PTO doesn't care, and industry executives don't care. The only answer is to get a bill in Congress, and start asking every candidate for Senator or Representative if they support it.
And make it clear that your support for them depends on a Yes answer.
20 years of complete & total control of an industry is way way way too long. If we're going to allow what Qualcomm did, it should be 5 years, absolute tops, probably less.
This is just so proper fucked, such a messed up manipulation. And I agree- it does look legal. The law debases itself, delegitimizes itself, brings shame to itself by permitting this unbelievable horseshit. Which, as others elsewhere have pointed out, is what was allowed: this ruling got appealed & overturned. Qualcomm got away with being a tyrant & ruining an industry.
Pace of change has increased from when the law was originally made. I agree with you but the laws haven't been updated to reflect how fast modern society moves.
Mind you, I think similarly for copyrights too. Every time they got extended they should have instead been shortened by 20%.
The risk, at least for copyright, is that there is no downside for predatory publishers to just wait the time limit out. It does need reforming, but it needs to take care of minor artist interests as well as big entertainment corporates and probably needs split provisions for the two.
Like, copyright might last a lifetime if owned by the author, and some arbitrarily short period if transferred to an incorporated entity. Laws should identify carefully publishers to avoid big corp exploiting the systems, but it could be made to work. Maybe make it so that personal copyright royalties starts from 1% gross revenue of publishing and adaptations, or something else big enough to incentivize money transfers out of coprs and toward artists.
Patents are a very broad instrument, and their practical length can be either quite short or crushingly large depending on which industry we are talking about. when your time to market from patent to actual use in the field can be measured in minutes, and first mover advantage leads to a patent locking an industry down, then sure, the current system is too much. But there are fields where the distance between patent and first use in industry can be 8-10 years, and no product gains wide adoption in the first couple of years, so the practical time of patent exploitation is a whole lot shorter.
It's just unfortunate that more nuance legislation will get us people playing games to define inventions as the most protected thing possible, whether they really deserve it or not.
just make patent renewal fees rise geometrically on an annual basis. choose any base you want, such as e. the initial filing might be $100. the second year, it's $272. third year, $739. by the 11th year, it's $2.2M, so real money. if the patent is still worth it, then patent holders will pay. otherwise, they can relinquish for the benefit of the public at large.
do the same for trademarks and copyrights (perhaps with different starting fees and bases).
You realise this suggestion would not have changed the situation under discussion? In fact it may make it worse (if a side-effect of this was to remove the 20 year limit?)
Then we have questions about juristiction - does one have to pay this patent fee everywhere, or just in the US?
And of course we'll ignore for the moment that this heavily skews the playing field in favour of large corporations with deep pockets and basically makes it impossible for small companies to enter the patent space.
Lastly it removes patent protection from small companies serving very small niche markets well.
Personally I don't like patents at all, but I see the need for them, mostly as protections for small market entrants. But your suggestion does not solve the problem being discussed, and comes with a raft of unwelcome side effects. So on the whole I would say your suggestion makes things worse not better.
no. if you want the patents to "expire" faster, you'd just change the base to something higher. no company will pay multiple billions to keep a patent into its 20th year. you'd use all that extra money for more plentiful enforcement against monopolistic practices like qualcomm's. that results in fairer markets overall, which benefits customers and new entrants the most.
the jurisdiction is the US, since this decision was made in a US court.
it actually helps small companies greatly. many frivolous patents by large companies (flanking defense patents, for example) would fall into the public domain within a couple years. companies would maintain patent only on the things that actually matter. small companies would enjoy many more ways to compete and many more unencumbered ideas to serve as jumping off points. what they wouldn't get is a surefire monopoly of their own.
Your solution though attempts to fix the system by making it "cost more". This will always favour large corporations, with more money, while prejudicing small companies making small amounts of money.
Shortening the monopoly period simply reduces the time small companies are protected. For example, I invent widget x. I sell 100K worth of that a year. I can live on that. Patent expires, big corp copies x. I can't afford to pay for my patent, so they win. I stop inventing and go get a job at big corp to pay my bills. This is a net loss.
Equally this would not stop patent trolls - since in many cases their patent claims are bogus, BUT it would cost me more (and risk more) to fight it than just pay the license. People don't pay the license _because_ the patent has value, they pay because it's the cheapest route out.
Trying to ban "patent trolls" also fails because "troll" is subjective. If I licensed my widget x above to big corp, and I don't manufacture anything myself, am I a troll?
Your suggestion would not stop "defensive" patents either (although it would reduce their number.) But if you can stop competition with 10 patents you don't need 1000. So it'll have no net-effect.
5 years is a long long time to dictate to the world your terms. You've had a chance to make a huge impact after 5 years. If the current system, especially where no courts defend a RAND premise (reasonable and non-disciminatory), 5 years is a vast amount of human life where progress may be kept in stasis. Humanity deserves to not be trapped for even 5 years, but hopefully the limit compels action even earlier.
In general, I think information-theory and software patents are also highly highly highly bullshit & everyone involved with this unethical & immoral practice should probably be shot into the sun.
This would enable major players to stall you for five years (mainly with lawsuits) and wait until your patent has expired. Five years is just too short.
>20 years of complete & total control of an industry is way way way too long.
1. 20 years was the headline, but clickbait at best, misinformation at worst.
2. If Qualcomm had total control, Ericsson and Nokia wouldn't exist.
3. This ruling got appealed & overturned, you should read the original ruling in the 233 report. I dont see how ignoring defendants ( Qualcomm ) testimony would help their when you know there will be an appeal.
why? arguing a point you havent bothered to make is stupid. yiu cant just insult an argument & walk away. 20y is how this horseshit goes with all patents, is a vast delegitimization everywhere. what are you trying to disagree with?
> appealed & overturned
repulsive & heartbreaking, complete neglect of civil & fair society; yeah, we know. the system continues to try hard to legitimize the legal robber barrony bullshit fucked up horseshit that regards only the very wealthy: we know. that's the problem. those at the top are against the public.
> repulsive & heartbreaking, complete neglect of civil & fair society; yeah, we know. the system continues to try hard to legitimize the legal robber barrony bullshit fucked up horseshit that regards only the very wealthy: we know. that's the problem. those at the top are against the public.
lmao. Calm down. Who knew you could get so worked up over boring niche elements of antitrust law that you most certainly don't understand.
> get so worked up over boring niche elements of antitrust law
this post is about 233 words of quite upright & moral certitude, of a very real & serious getting worked up about anti-trust indignity that was foisted upon the world by a low & dirty corporation.
yes, it was overturned. by cowardly pro-corporate assholes.
we should be outraged. your attempt to quell reason, to dismiss indignity deeply scored against humanity: it's vile, and literally baseless: you've made no cause, set no reason, other than mockery & personal insult. get out. if you don't want to participate in discussions of civil society, please kindly find someplace else to go piss on & stop being a degrading insulting & abrasive jerk to me. you've said nothing of value, injected no concerns: just belittled & mocked.
"boring niche... antitrust" is in fact a major oppressor & wounds us all. you don't have to agree, but trying to degrade & mock people for caring is low. anti-caring is not a valid response. and it's deeply unkind. if you want to make claims, try to state why you think my concern are overblown: that's fine, make a stance. but just blanketly insulting & degrading someone, writing me off with cheap ad-hominem attacks: that's malicious, and gross.
... sure but have you read the report/appeal ruling? Because otherwise yes I don't think you should this outraged over something that you haven't actually researched.
And I don't know but to me calling the judges "cowardly assholes" is the pretty cheap ad hominen attack here. Especially since if you have made 0 effort to actually read what they said, or understand their reasoning. I also hope you realize judges don't create the laws, so blaming them for applying legislation they have no control over... makes your comment sound even more pointlessly outraged and adds to the moral crusade self righteousness.
And it isn't AntiTrust Law he doesn't understand, but how the Telecom / Wireless Industry and the whole 3GPP Rel process works. Links with counter argument ( if it was even an argument to begin with ) were provided, and that was the response I got on HN.
A vast part of problem is that the people deciding aren't adequately technical, can't judge the non-obvious clause adequately.
Making up some faint new claim, that so happens to largely encompasses the existing claim, feels all too regular. There's just so few people fit to judge, to appropriately decide to award or not award another decade or so of monopoly to a patent.
The US has an interest in keeping down (international) competition though. When Huawei started becoming competitive and/or better than Qualcomm, Ericsson, and all the other 5G players, the US sanctioned them to death. Europe is basically an American client state so for geopolitical purposes they're not really any different from Qualcomm.
Bahy-Dole Act and DoD Federal Acquisition Regs. are the answer to your question about "who gets access to these patents" and should be the focus of reform if you find them inadequate. Outside my area of the law, but my understanding is prior to Bahy-Dole, it was common for the Gov. to take title to patents arising from Gov. funded research, and that this was seen as a disincentive to commercializing the technology. So Bahy-Dole adjusted the balance, with certain lesser rights (like march in rights and a license) going to the government to try to drive more commercialization of the technology that was invented under Gov. contracts.
