posted by Kevin Morris
In response to Dick Selwood’s recent article “Lawyers, Bankers, and Engineers”, I want to take a different (and perhaps controversial) stand: We need MORE lawyers. (The torch mob can form on the left, now. Please stand by, and take a number.) That’s right, I said it. The world doesn’t have nearly enough well-trained legal experts to keep pace with the incredible demands being created... mostly by our community of engineers.
Over the past few decades, engineers have pushed technology ahead at breakneck pace. We’ve literally changed the world - and our complex system of laws and rules has been left in the dust. Engineers created things like the atom bomb, the internet, airplanes, surveillance cameras, mobile phones - the list goes on forever. The cumulative effect of these innovations on society is enormous. Many of these inventions have also completely invalidated existing systems of laws and rules - from personal privacy to intellectual property protection to questions of taxation and legal jurisdiction.
Before the Internet, music recordings were easy enough to define, protect, and police. As a musician, you recorded your music and sold CDs. If somebody copied your CD, they broke the law. Simple enough. With the arrival of the Internet, the idea of a “copy” was turned on its head. As we all know, music recordings now exist in a wormhole of multi-dimensional legal chaos. If you download a song onto your laptop and then play it on your MP3 player, you’ve just made copies. Legal? Not sure? The invention of massive music file-sharing capability famously broke a system of laws that was not prepared for the technological innovation. As a result, huge segments of the population joined a mass hysteria that basically resulted in copyright violation and theft on a monumental scale. Struggling musicians were robbed blind - mainly because the legal system couldn’t adapt fast enough to changes in technology.
We engineers have pretty much obliterated the existing notions of individual privacy as well. With people sharing information on social media, walking around with GPS devices continually logging their position and monitoring their every communication, and moving about in a landscape littered with surveillance cameras, who decides where one’s right to privacy exists? Certainly our old laws never contemplated the world in which we now live. Can the state subpoena twitter? Can someone ask for your facebook password in a job interview? Can the police track your position based on your mobile device? Does facebook own your photos? All of these are new, complex legal problems that need to be solved - by expert legal engineers.
Our quaint patent system - certainly much maligned in these pages - was created in an age of minimal collaboration. It was based on a notion of an “inventor” in a garage, creating a useful thing - almost independent of the work of others. This system has been absolutely crushed by the modern era of massively collaborative innovation carried out by loose clusters of enormous engineering teams - working at multiple international corporations - and doing derivative work whose complex tendrils weave deep into the past and extend blindly into the future. The pace of innovation forseen by those trying to protect Whitney’s Cotton Gin long enough so old Eli could get a good return on his engineering effort was a couple of decades - or to put it another way, about half of the entire length of the modern era of Moore’s Law exponential change. In order to keep pace with today’s technological progress, a complete re-thinking of the fundamental patent system and operating frequency needs to be engineered.
Lawyers haven’t completely failed in dealing with the fusillade unleashed on them by the engineering world. In the examples above, when the pace of legislation was FAR too slow to be of any real help, lawyers crafted new types of contracts and agreements to fill the gap. When studios wanted to release movies on DVD format, many discovered that they didn’t have music rights for DVD distribution. They had never envisioned the existence of the new format, so they had licensed the music for things like “VHS tape”. Today, many contracts contain more progress-aware boilerplate like: “on all media now known or hereafter devised”. This list of legal patches looks like the bug tracking system for Microsoft Windows. The legal workarounds are often ugly and unwieldy, but they usually work well, and they’re the only option in the wake turbulence left in the legal system behind our massive technological juggernaut.
These are just a few examples of the enormous challenge our society faces in creating, interpreting, and enforcing its laws in the face of radical technological changes. It’s serious business - as our ability to govern ourselves through agreed rules is the only thing separating us from a pretty nasty state of nature. In light of this challenge, we need the best experts we can find - and a lot of them - to design social systems that can take full advantage of, and protect us from, our own propensity for innovation and progress. We need more lawyers, not fewer.
posted by Bryon Moyer
The many bands that cellphones must support, coupled with environmental changes that can have a dramatic effect on the effectiveness of a phone’s antenna, have made the concept of antenna “tuning” particularly relevant. We looked at WiSpry’s approach to this some time ago. The concept involves an array of capacitors that can be reconfigured in real time to change the characteristics of the antenna and improve reception.
Most such MEMS capacitor arrays consist of cantilevers – like diving boards – or bridges – basically, cantilevers supported on both ends. (Which… makes them not cantilevers… yes, I understand…) But there’s a new company, just on the heels of a funding round, that has proposed a different way to build the capacitor.
DelfMEMS (I was so expecting them to be associated with Delft, the Netherlands, but no… they’re French) points to stiction as a particular problem for these traditional structures. Stiction is the tendency of a variety of influences – atomic forces, residual gunks, etc. – to cause a micro- or nanoscale structure to stick when you don’t want it to. So, for instance, if you push a cantilever down until it touches a base surface, it may stick when you remove the force you used to push it down.
Some companies actually use this as a way of holding down the cantilever, but in general, the issue comes when trying to release it. Assuming you’re not intentionally using stiction as your hold-down mechanism, DelfMEMS says that the traditional approach to avoiding stiction issues when opening the contact is to rely on mechanical force sufficient to overcome the stiction. And this mechanical force is typically provided by using a really stiff beam structure, located relatively far from the contact surface. That way it’s pulling away hard.
The downside of that is that you need a very high voltage – on the order of 50-100 V – to bend the thing when you want to actuate it.
DelfMEMS has a different structure. Viewed from the side, you can think of it like a bridge, except that, instead of being anchored at the end of the beam, there are two pillars placed in from the ends, and the bridge rests on them. This means that the beam can flex both so that the middle bows down, with the ends raising up, and so that the middle bows up, with the ends flexing down. The key is that they put actuating electrodes both in the middle, to pull the middle down and make contact, and under the ends, to pull the ends down, which raises the middle and breaks the contact. In other words, you get electrical help in both directions. And that reduces the voltages needed to less than 20 V.
This appears to be the essence of what they bring to the table, although they talk about other details in a whitepaper on their website. You can find out more about them and their recent funding round in their release.
posted by Bryon Moyer
I’ve commented in the past about how ISSCC, largely in contrast to other shows, had a distinctly binary color – or lack of color – scheme. As usual, I approached the escalator this year with the expectation that I’d be able to give my retinal cones a well-deserved vacation.
Instead, I had to check to make sure I was in the right place. ISSCC has made a dramatic shift towards the casual. Even where suits are in evidence, they are much less black than I seem to recall from years past. I don’t know if this has been a gradual boil-the-frog change that I’m just noticing or if this year is indeed a step function.
It also seems to be ever so slightly less male-exclusive. Although that’s definitely by degrees… The Y-chromosome factor here is still overwhelmingly dominant, to the extent that they converted a Ladies’ restroom into another Men’s restroom to handle the imbalance. But progress is progress…