Out of our five senses the vision is the most useful when it comes to the exchange of information with a digital domain.  Hence, displays are an indispensible link between humans, computers and other numbers crunching devices. This status quo will remain in place for quite some time.   (That is until we will be able to couple digitally processed information directly to our brains bypassing our five sensing systems). The question is how do the semiconductors fit into a growing display business?

Not long ago display technology was dominated entirely by bulky and power hungry CRT (Cathode Ray Tube) imaging devices. The working of a CRT has nothing to do with semiconductors.  In the currently dominating active matrix liquid crystal displays (LCD), however, semiconductors are playing pivotal role in the form of thin-film transistors (TFT) controlling each pixel. The next step is a generation of displays based entirely on semiconductors. This is because not only transistors, but also light emitting elements of the display are semiconductor based Light Emitting Diodes, LEDs. (Fabricated using either organic -or inorganic semiconductors). So, slowly but surely, displays are becoming yet another prominent member of the semiconductor devices family. And the role of semiconductors in our lives is growing and growing…..

A concept of a TFT, or a Thin Film Transistor, is almost as old as semiconductor thin film technology. The renewed in recent years interest in this very important type of transistor is a result of the key role it plays in active matrix displays regardless of whether displays are based on liquid crystals or LEDs  (organic and inorganic, for that matter). Simply, only in the TFT form a transistor needed to control current powering each pixel can be integrated with photonic part of the display.

A quick question with regard to my previous blog "PV vs. Semiconductors? Not according to fundamentals" which comments on the notion that photovoltaics and “semiconductors” are two separate technical/industrial/business domains. By the way, my sensitivity to the dilemma in question is deeply rooted. It was 30 years ago that I was involved in the research on MIS tunnel diodes solar cells (yes, it’s not only a p-n junction; at that time MIS tunnel diodes and  Schottky diode based solar cells were also considered - see my entry on “Working of the solar cell" of July 20 and 23, 2008).            

Just like in the case of a description of what is a semiconductor, according to which “The most significant semiconductor is the transistor” (see my blog of Jan. 26, 2008), fundamentals defying terminology regarding semiconductor as a material and semiconductor devices is quite common. Recently, the surge of interest in photovoltaics (PV is short) provides fertile territory for shortcuts in semiconductor terminology. As an example, term PV (phtovoltaics), representing sector of semiconductor industry involved in the manufacture of solar energy conversion devices (or solar cells) is often contrasted with term “semiconductors” used in the reference to integrated circuits and other mass produced electronic semiconductor devices (by the way, do photonic devices such as LEDs, lasers, etc. belong to the “semiconductor” category? And how about MEMS?)

What CMOS cell, a heart of the digital electronics, and the internal combustion engine, a workhorse of the automobile industry, has in common? Both are getting close to the status of endangered species. The former is facing seemingly insurmountable scaling barriers and as a result discussion of the “post-CMOS” era is wide open. The latter, because it uses fuels derived from fossil fuels is considered to be approaching the end of its road and alternatives such as hybrids, plug-in hybrids and plug-is are the talk of the day.

As you can conclude from the last few posts I fully appreciate the role played by scientific/technical meetings and conferences. Over the years (many years I might add) I attended probably well over hundred meetings, conferences and symposia. Very many good things happened to me professionally as the result of attendance at the conferences. I was always looking forward to going to the conference, presenting a paper, interacting, rubbing shoulders with my peers…

It is probably a matter of common understanding that the most of the established technical/scientific meetings and conferences are for-profit endeavors. It certainly applies to the conferences organized by the scientific and professional societies of interest to semiconductor community such as IEEE, ECS, MRS, and so on. Income from the meetings and conferences (i.e. from registration fees and sponsors contributions) is an important component of the society’s budget. 

The solution could be in devising of the working models for the virtual attendance at the conferences in parallel with traditional face-to-face attendance. Models which on one hand would satisfy the need of the scientific community to stay in touch with the newest developments and on the other would allow societies to draw an income needed to maintain desired level of activities (or, as one might say, to stay in business). The problem is that in the light of the continued success of, and continued income stream from, conventional face-to-face conferences, the interest in devising alternative solutions, such as virtual participation, did not seem to be an issue scientific societies were eager to tackle. The need to act in this regard may sooner or later be simply imposed on the scientific societies and other symposia and conferences organizing institutions. It will be interesting to see which entity will come up with a working (and I mean really working) model offering both face-to-face and virtual participation in the conferences

Technical meetings and conferences allowing face-to-face contacts and direct exchange of information and ideas between scientists are an integral part of a scientific experience. It is not possible to produce a tangible measure of the impact conferences had over the years on the progress in any scientific domain. Yet, their role is quite obviously threatened these days.

Many of the conferences I went to recently featured lower than usually attendance. It is also quite common these days that the deadlines for the abstract submission are extended well beyond original dates (which is an unmistakable indication of the lower than expected number of submitted abstracts). Both these observations lead to the conclusion that scientific/technical meetings and conferences are very likely becoming yet another victim of the global economical downturn. With universities on the very tight budgets and companies more often laying people off than hiring, funds for attending conferences and symposia are the first victims of the budget cuts.

The "patent game" goes well beyond what I said earlier (February 27) and doesn't even have to involve patenting of an invention. The emergence of organizations which have nothing to patent, but instead are buying patent rights of others, adds a new dimension to the “game”. The patents are purchased for the purpose of making money on the royalties paid by companies using those patents. Alternatively, the money is made by pursuing infringement litigations in the case patent licenses are not being acquired, yet, patents are being used. Such "non-practicing entities", known also as "patent trolls" (Photonics Spectra, March 2009), are growing in numbers which means that the scheme is working.

The procedure described above is perfectly legitimate and does not seem to be depriving anyone of anything. To an old timer such as me, however, it looks like an exploitation of the patent system having nothing to do with the reasons for which such system was introduced in the first place. Still, all of the above should not be necessarily taken as an indication of the malfunction of the patent system. What should be taken as such, however, is illustrated by the following factual information: according to the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office there are currently 1.2 million patent applications pending and patents issued in 2008 took an average 32.3 months to move from patent filing to its final approval. And that’s certainly not good…