18 nanometer transistor 76
chrisr was the first of many to tell us that less than a week after the BBC reported Bell Labs had developed a 50 nanometer transistor, researchers at the University of California at Berkeley have announced an 18 nanometer transistor. Best of all, the team has decided to not patent the design, hoping it will lead to faster acceptance.
Re:Someone else will (Score:1)
Re:Someone else will (Score:1)
As far as I know, you cannot patent something that has already been published. I believe it falls under the idea of "prior art" or something like that. Of course, given the state of the patent office today, they'd probably let you do it anyway. The trick would come up when you're trying to enforce the patent.
That isn't the way patents work (Score:1)
Kudos to the UC Berkeley people for their farsighted anti-patent actions in this case.
Re:Someone else will (Score:1)
Well, that's true everywhere, except the US (And possibly Canada).
In the US, you're allowed to patent something that you've published, as long as the patent is filed *within a year* of publication.
Wierd, yes, considering no one else in the world does it (except possibly Canada).
Re:hmm.. (can someone else patent the transistor) (Score:1)
Kudos to Hu and Huang! (Score:1)
Pretty ballsy move. I expect some beancounters at the university must be just a weeeee bit choked right now.
--
rickf@transpect.SPAM-B-GONE.net (remove the SPAM-B-GONE bit)
If you squint.... (Score:1)
No, really??? That's so small!
how they're going to build it? (Score:1)
Ok so what! (Score:1)
Re:Ok so what! (Score:1)
-Jason
Re:That isn't the way patents work (Score:1)
I found this: (United States Code, Title 35 - Patents, Part II - Patentability of inventions and grant of patents, Chapter 10 - Patentability of inventions, Sec. 102 Conditions for patentability; novelty and loss of right to patent) [cornell.edu]
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless -
(b) the invention was patented or described in a printed publication in this or a foreign country or in public use or on sale in this country, more than one year prior to the date of the application for patent in the United States
So, the inventor has 1 year after the announcement.
--
Guess what (Score:3)
Hey, do you think we can port linux to one of them(to a single transistor)?
Windows sux! I hope Bill Gates doesn't try to force us to upgrade to these new transistors so we can run Windows 2k.
Do you think the NSA can use these transistors to monitor our emails? BOMB, NUCLEAR, IRAQ, CHINA, ALLAH.
What did I leave out?
Re: (Score:1)
Re:Guess what (Score:1)
"There are no shortcuts to any place worth going."
Exciting times we live in... (Score:1)
A: IBM's technology to fabricate LCD displays onto plastic, giving rise pretty soon to flexable and cheap LCD panels
B: All these new transistor technologies, that allow pixels to be made smaller...
Is it just me, or are we living in a very exciting era? 8-)
-=- SiKnight
I'm waiting for the computerization of humans... (Score:1)
"There are no shortcuts to any place worth going."
Re:how they're going to build it? (Score:1)
-=- SiKnight
your wrong. (Score:1)
Re:Kudos to Hu and Huang! (Score:1)
No, nobody is choked right now. Any patent would belong to the University, not to the researchers. The decision to not patent was made by the university. Hell, IIRC, the very first paper I signed when I matriculated as an undergrad at UCB [berkeley.edu] assigned all rights to any intelectual property I developed, while at the University, back to the school. And that was a long time ago.
Yes, It is an insightful move by the University not to patent this.
Go Bears!
Re:how they're going to build it? (Score:1)
Open sourcing.. or GPL? (Score:1)
Nice job, what about the interconnect? (Score:1)
With all of the advancements in transistor size, you've got to think that wiring the little buggers together is going to get real interesting. Smaller transistors mean less voltage, less drive strength, and lower noise margins. Narrower interconnect means higher resistance. Try to pack the metal lines too close together and you've got even more noise problems.
Aren't we already at the point where the interconnect is beginning to dominate silicon real estate?
Are Patents Obsolete? (Score:3)
When guys are patenting obvious, or worse, prior art like "multimedia transmitted over the internet" and actually getting people to pay up, while other guys are increasing the cost-effectiveness of the information infrastructure by, oh, lets say a factor of 10, and can't receive substantial returns in support their talent for future risk-taking innovation -- the patent of invention has gone the way of the patent of nobility: It is obsolete.
What made the patent of nobility obsolete was the corruption of the nobility by politics. What, apparently, has made the patent of invention obsolete is the corruption of invention by legalistics.
We still need nobility. In technological civilization, nobility is in the creative act. The problem is the politicians and lawyers have demonstrated they are, as a cultural phenomenon, hostile to true nobility.
The creative act deserves the respect, reward and protection traditionally reserved for nobles.
Fortunately, creators, themselves, possess great power.
Re:Nice job, what about the interconnect? (Score:1)
of course, that's what engineering is all about..
--------------------
this space left intentionally blank
US centric again (Score:3)
Re: Some clarifications on the ".18 micron" thing (Score:1)
Some devices that need to lower power consumption, and have very high clock speeds (read Intel and AMD CPUs) are built at 0.18 micron.
The 0.25/0.18 is only an industry reference, and not the actual size of the transistors. Some high end manufacturers (again, Intel and AMD) have parts of their 0.18 products etched at 0.14 and even 0.12 micron right now. Motorola's upcoming 0.18 micron copper process (not the one that G4s are made with, which is an hybrid 0.25/0.18) is able to make transistors as small as 0.10 micron.
Re:I have to wonder... (Score:1)
To a first approximation ..... but it also has to drive the wires that connect them .... sadly we've reached an area where wire capacitance doesn't scale down as fast as everything else (because of edge effects are starting to dominate .... and the number of edges doesn't change no matter how small you make something. RC delays are now abig deal - that's why there's a big push for lower immpedance wires (Cu instead of Al for example - hell we'd use Au if it could be made to work) and lower capacitance insulators/dielectrics (but SiO is soooo easy to make on Si).
So it has to sink enough current to charge/discharge the capacitance on the wires and other gates connected to it, at the switching speed you want to run it at - you design to fit.
Re:Kudos to Hu and Huang! (Score:1)
Disappointment (Score:1)
Would anybody be willing to fetch the JPEG image of this new device out of their browser cache and stick it up on the web? All the graphics seem to have been removed from the original site (slashdotted I guess
Consciousness is not what it thinks it is
Thought exists only as an abstraction
100 atoms long... (Score:2)
Deosyne
Re:how they're going to build it? (Score:1)
Re:Are Patents Obsolete? (Score:2)
When guys are patenting obvious, or worse, prior art like "multimedia transmitted over the internet" and actually getting people to pay up, while other guys are increasing the cost-effectiveness of the information infrastructure by, oh, lets say a factor of 10, and can't receive substantial returns in support their talent for future risk-taking innovation -- the patent of invention has gone the way of the patent of nobility: It is obsolete.
Is the patent system abused? Yes. Obsolete? Hell no.
What, apparently, has made the patent of invention obsolete is the corruption of invention by legalistics.
The problem with is that the threshold for granting them is pathetically low. (See this patent on refrigerator magnets [ibm.com].) Add a Patent Office that doesn't/can't do nearly the research that should be done to determine prior art. Throw in a culture of litigation and fear of litigation; and you have a situation ripe for abuse.
This situation can be corrected removing any of those conditions (However correcting a culture tends to to be alot harder than correcting the others.)
In technological civilization, nobility is in the creative act. The problem is the politicians and lawyers have demonstrated they are, as a cultural phenomenon, hostile to true nobility.
Mmmmm no. It's simple "Buisness is War". Who are the warriors in buisness? No, not the engineers and scientists, but rather lawyers. You create what you can and you hinder your competition <Malcom X> by any means necessary </Malcom X>. Hostile take over. Lawsuits. HR Raids. Patents. It's all the same.
The creative act deserves the respect, reward and protection traditionally reserved for nobles.
Yes creativity deserves resepect. Yes it deserves protection. Guess what? There's already a mechanism to protect products of creativity. It's called "patents".
Nobels on the other hand deserve nothing since all they did to get their title was be born. Those that spout Divine-Right and Divine-Right-eque beliefs are either damn liars or damn fools. (However this does not mean you should go and spit in the face of Queen Elizabeth II or call her "Liz", her title deserves respect. However can lobby for the abolishion of the very monarchy she heads.)
Fortunately, creators, themselves, possess great power.
Wait. Did I miss something? Previously you said that the transistor inventors "can't receive substantial returns in support their talent for future risk-taking innovation" but now you say they have "great power" which is it? If you don't have the abiltiy to follow through with your invention what good is it?
Re:Someone else will (Score:1)
HTH. HAND.
No Patents for Berkeley but... (Score:1)
Surely their decision NOT to patent is merely an open invitation to all those opportunists out there to go ahead and patent the technology?
I have no real idea about what you can and can't patent and maybe other people can't patent it (pls tell me if this is the case) but if they could then the patent would almost surely be saught after by someone else?
no (Score:1)
-----
No patent? Not surprising (Score:1)
In light of the recent discussions on patents and copyrights, I thought many of you might like to see what my alma mater has to say on this matter. The whole document may be accessed at
http://www2.ncsu.edu/ncsu/research_outreach_ext
Anyway, the preamble is a pleasant read for all of those opposed to frivilous/progress-stifling patents applications...
"North Carolina State University is dedicated to teaching, research and extending knowledge to the public.
It is the policy of the University to carry out its scholarly work in an open and free atmosphere and to publish results obtained therefrom freely, limited only by a short time delay in cases in which this is necessary to prepare and file applications. Patentable inventions sometimes arise out of research activities of its faculty, staff and students which are carried out wholly or in part with University facilities. As a public service institution, the University has an interest in assuring the utilization of such inventions for the public good. Protection must be provided for at least some of these inventions through patents and licenses to encourage their development and marketing. Patents and their exploitation, however, represent only a small part of the benefits accruing from either publicly or privately sponsored research.
A portion of the research conducted by the University is supported by government and a portion by private industry. Service to the public, including private industry, is an integral part of the University's mission. As a public institution, the University, in its agreements with private industry or other private organizations, must keep the interests of the general public in view. The rights and privileges set forth in cooperative agreements or contracts, with respect to patents and copyrights developed as a result of research partly or wholly financed by private parties, must be fair and just to the inventor(s), the sponsor and the public. Research should be undertaken by the University under support from private parties only if it is consistent with and complementary to the University's goals and responsibilities to the public."
Although, this document may be copyrighted, I'm not sure
Eric
Re:how they're going to build it? (Score:1)
My guess is that they've achieved a controllable way to either side-etch the channel down to that width, or build it up in a chemically (not optically) produced crack.
Actual fab technology (Score:2)
So can anyone answer a couple of questions?
It looks like these suckers will require a couple of poly layers to get the gate to wrap around the channel... will that require any type of mass changes to the fab process (besides going to, oh, I don't know, the x-ray band for the masking)
Since the channel is about 18nm wide, these babies will have a (reletively) massive amount of resitance, as oppsed to the Bell Labs design which has a small gate, but a fairly large channel. Will this effect the charging of the next few gates down the line from them because...
In a nutshell, would someone use these devices in high-performance applications, or would they only be suitable for getting better density on a chip? Oh ya, my knowledge of VLSI sucks, so please be kind with flames.
I have an idea for really small transistors ! :-) (Score:2)
How about a transistor which combines both technologies ?
Patents and the Transitor (Score:1)
Later, Bell removed all fees for producing the transistor. Although this was mostly a move to reduce Monopoly pressure from the Gov't.
The inventors of the transistor were happy to see they started the computer age. Their only regret was that the small size of pocket radio allowed teenagers to listen to the radio away from adults and thus contributed to the spread of Rock and Roll music.
I think Bell Labs is likely to patent the process. However, I think they will license it for free.
Re:US centric again (Score:1)
didn't make it on Slashdot, as of course only the US can make innovations, and anything else doesn't exist
"But when you look at the French 20 nanometer transistor closely, it looks A LOT like the old Russian design. In fact, they basically bought the design from the Russians, who stole it from US back in the 50's.", he deadpanned.
I wish I had a nickel for every time someone said "Information wants to be free".
Re:Someone else will (Score:1)
Re:Are Patents Obsolete? (Score:1)
It looks like it's time lay the smack down on someone...
That's his allusion to power #1.
It's simple "Buisness is War".
#2
by any means necessary .
#3
But when I say: Fortunately, creators, themselves, possess great power.
Suddenly, the his allusions to power evaporate in the comment Wait. Did I miss something?
These 3 allusions to power are given weight by the existence of a governmental system that threatens people with force. If one would "smack someone down..." declare "business is war..." and quote Malcolm X, surely one is aware that the limits of civility can be stretched to the breaking point. And that is exactly my point:
If the creators of civilization are betrayed by its supposed maintainers, everyone loses, but the betrayers lose more.
Danger of no patent (Score:1)
Wouldn't a better idea be to patent the design and then GPL it, or something similar to that? Remember, Intel isn't making faster chips to make the world a better place, they're making faster chips because they like downloading greenbits from your wallet.
Sung to the tune of "Backstreet's Back Again!" (Score:1)
Re:Are Patents Obsolete? (Score:2)
While I agree with your premise that the threshold for patents is too low in the US (I like the European Patent Office criterea better), one has to wonder whether the particular invention you cited is in fact a good example of something that does not deserve a patent. It seems to me that having a magnetic sheet with attached perforated tags which could be printed with various forms of advertising is in fact a fairly useful idea, and one I haven't seen in use, either.
I have seen a lot of ideas that may look trivial actually turn up to be EXTREMELY valuable. The Post-It, for example. What is that except a piece of paper with some glue on it? Is that, on the face of it, any different in simplicity than a refrigerator magnet with fly strips? Yet it has been worth hundreds of millions of dollars to 3M and is generally considered to be one of the most innovating approaches to using a product (a weak glue) in an unexpected way that has come along in recent memory.
The fact of it is that the BEST ideas are simple - the ones that you look at and say 'why didn't I think of that!', not the complex Rube Goldbergs that we are all too often saddled with in our technological society.
Re:Actual fab technology (Score:1)
One more thing, how to they figure that 18 nm is about 100 atoms in length? Last I checked the atomic spacing in single crystal silicon (a wafer) was on the order of 5.43 Angstroms, so my handy dandy Rat Shack calculator says about 33 atoms would fit in a line 18 nm long....don't you just love PR press releases?!
One more thing (then I swear I will shut up), where did they come up with this stupid FinFET?? I would call this sucker a DGFET (Dual/Double Gate FET), but I guess they needed a new buzzword.
Re:Nah, UCB has a 33/33/33 deal (Score:1)
More like Drexler (Score:1)
Gibson's got nothing. More like Engines of Creation [foresight.org].
Re:Actual fab technology (Score:1)
The picture is available her e [berkeley.edu], and as you can see it is not a dual gated FET, but just has a gate that wraps around. Granted, I'm fairly sure that the picture is not to scale.
Comments? And thank you for an intelligent reply.
Re:Actual fab technology (Score:1)
Re:US centric again (Score:1)
Re:US centric again (Score:1)