, , , , ,

Posner: Eventually there will be an international law of virtual worlds

Friday, December 15, 2006

In his talk in second life, Judge Richard Posner (JRP) said that we might have international law governing the virtual worlds. Here's a cite:

JRP: A currency is legitimate in the usual sense if it is legal tender-- i.e., you can't refuse it as a means of payment. So you can have a legitimate currency within a virtual world, but you could not compel people outside it to accept virtual world dollars in payment for goods or services.

Skadi Nordwind: The corporation still resides in the US.

JRP: Good question, but it arises in ordinary law--accident at sea, etc.--so there is an international law of admiralty. Eventually there will be an international law of virtual worlds.

Wow. This is almost similar to my opinion that we might have Convention on the Law and Jurisdiction Applicable to Virtual Societies in 2040. I would like now to rescind my opinion and resuggest to have it in, at the latest, 2015 (Guess why "2015"...). This is a quote from my original post titled Jurisdiction in online games:
What if there are disagreement between states on its taxation? Well, no other ways but to resolve this in a Treaty. And who knows, maybe as a part of that Treaty, online gaming societies can create their own version of body of law, independent of any state. This way they can refer their dispute to their own rules, interpret agreement in accordance with their own usage and customs, settle their problems at their own virtual court and enforce them with their own cyber police. A truly sui-generis legal community.
Custom, that's the keyword! That custom will evolve into law. I have said that virtual societies are unique as they:
  1. Develop their own customs, usages and traditions
  2. In the future, their "GNP" could be greater than a state
  3. Are in the process of developing their own dispute settlement process
  4. Are developing their own sense of citizenship, rights and obligations
With regards to custom, judge posner said:
JRP: The servers are solid, but not the software. The way law historically develops is from custom. I can imagine customs emerging from interactions among avatars, and then Linden codifying the customs, as laws, that seem best to regulate the virtual world.
What legal reporter usually do is codifying custom into codes. Well, why not start codifying it now? What are the custom enforced among avatars? Let's start codifying it and later we can make the draft convention (in a few years). We can do it through wikis if you want.

The transcript of the talk is available here.

(Hat Tip to Denise Howell)

 

, , ,

Search nano patents with google!

Thursday, December 14, 2006

Good news for patent lawyers, you can now search available patents using google. Look what I found when entering the term "nano": 848 results. Not bad.

Method of fabricating nano-tube, method of manufacturing field-emission type cold cathode, and method of manufacturing display device
US Pat. 6780075 - Filed December 22, 2000 - NEC Corporation
the carbon nano-tube through the entire surface of the emitter. Also, in an
ordinary ion implantation, in case radiation has been performed until the carbon ...

Method of manufacturing nano-gap electrode
US Pat. 7056446 - Filed September 16, 2003 - Communications Research Laboratory, Independent Administrative Institution
35 Generally, in order to manufacture nano-gap electrodes, electron beam lithography ... Thus, when a nano-gap electrode is made using the FIB lithography, ...

NANO-STRUCTURED PARTICLES WITH HIGH THERMAL STABILITY
US Pat. 7125536 - Filed February 6, 2004 - Millennium Inorganic Chemicals
More particularly, the present invention is directed to nano-structured metal-oxide
... 35 40 In one embodiment, the present invention provides nano- 50 ...

Process for preparing nano-porous metal oxide semiconductor layers
US Pat. 6929970 - Filed September 11, 2003 - Agfa-Gevaert
6 at a temperature of 100 to 200° C. According to a thirteenth Spectral Sensitization
of Nano-porous Metal Oxide embodiment of the process, according to the ...

Crystalline polymer nano-particles
US Pat. 6689469 - Filed December 31, 2001 - Bridgestone Corporation
The com-position includes polymer nano-particles having a poly ( ... The nano-particles preferably have a mean average diameter of less than about 100 nm. ...

Nano-scaled graphene plates
US Pat. 7071258 - Filed October 21, 2002 - Nanotek Instruments, Inc.
(54) NANO-SCALED GRAPHENE PLATES (75) Inventors: Bor Z. Jang, Fargo, ...
The process for producing nano-scaled graphene plate material comprises the steps ...

Polyolefin nano-composite
US Pat. 6872791 - Filed December 22, 2001 - Samsung Atofina Co. Ltd.
2 POLYOLEFIN NANO-COMPOSITE a catalyst system comprising () a supported catalyst consisting of (at a polymer, (b) a silicate clay mineral, ...

Semiconductor nano-rod devices
US Pat. 6855606 - Filed February 20, 2003 - Taiwan Semiconductor Manufacturing Company, Ltd. In one aspect, the present invention relates to a method of forming a nano-rod structure for a channel of a field effect transistor. ...

Method for production of nano-porous coatings
US Pat. 6465052 - Filed November 30, 2001 - Nanotek Instruments, Inc.
The term "nano-porous solid" means a solid that contains essentially ...

Nano-porous silica films also can be prepared using a mixture of a solvent and a ...
Composition for preparing substances having nano-pores
US Pat. 6632748 - Filed September 25, 2001 - Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd.
FIELD OF THE INVENTION The present invention relates to a composition for preparing substances having nano-pores. More specifically, the present ...

Try the search yourself here.

Click on the labels to see previous discussion on patents and other intellectual property issues.

 

, , , , ,

Environmental, Health and Safety Policy Recommendation

Tuesday, December 12, 2006

ICF International, a consulting services company for technology solutions in the energy, environment, transportation, social programs, defense, and homeland security markets had released its recommendation on Environmental, Health and Safety Policy recommendation for the US Government, in a 36 page document.

One thing I like from the document is the way it explains and analyse inter-departemental competence in US Government in handling Nanotechnology's Environmental, Health and Safety (EHS) issues. On the other hand, I am quite pessimistic that this report can encompass all of Nanotech's EHS issue.

The Reason? They focus mainly on the toxicity of nanomaterials (See: Part I, Framing the issue). The whole set of assumption which forms the rest of the report is based on this. It is not that this issue is not important, it is important and it reflects the most "current" nanotech EHS issue. However, it may not be that current in one or two years. Thus, I don't think that the rest of the recommendation can cover Nanotech EHS issue, other than the relationship between nanomaterials to human and the environment.

EHS issue on the second and third generation nanotechnology which covers active nanostructure will also need to be addressed. So far, I have not discover any research focusing on this.

You can download ICF International report here.

 

, , ,

Lawyers, update your nano vocabulary!

Monday, December 11, 2006

My previous posts had discussed various definitions of nanotechnology in order for us to exercise more prudency before drafting a contract. We shall avoid categorizing non nano products into "nano", although the barriers are not clear enough. Aerosol for example may be less than 10 nm but they may not qualified as an "engineered nanoparticle".

However, contracts related to existing nanotechnology may not contain the word "nanotechnology" at all. Our client can be either a producer of nanocrystal or nanowire or nanocomposite or nanorob or nanotube or nanoribbon or nanofibre, all that is too specific to be categorized simply as nanotechnology. So, how are we going to distinguish between one nano and the other nano?

Some institutions has been developing a standard nomenclature for nanomaterials:
Last month at the ACS national meeting in San Diego, Vicki Colvin, director of the Center for Biological & Environmental Nanotechnology and chemistry professor at Rice University, told a standing-room-only crowd about a project she’s spearheaded to create a dictionary for the nanoscale. Colvin hopes that by developing standard terminology for nanomaterials, she and her colleagues will be able to create a common language that helps scientists and nonscientists alike.
So, go and update your vocabs! The British Standard nano-nomenclatures is available for a free download here (as of 11/12/06).

 

, , , ,

Unwise Nanotechnology Regulation

Neil Lane's statement is compelling:

"In my view, given what's at stake, this situation is unacceptable. I fear that nanotechnology may be heading for a fall. A major environmental, medical or safety problem -- real or bogus -- with a product or application that's labeled 'nanotechnology' -- whether it actually is nanotechnology or not -- could dampen public confidence and financial investment in nanotechnology's future, and could even lead to unwise regulation. We should not let this happen," stated Dr. Lane.

As stated by NSF, Nanotechnology development will occur in these stages:



1st Generation: Passive nanostructures
2nd Generation: Active nanostructures
3rd Generation: Systems of nanosystems
4th Generation: Molecular nanosystems

Each generation of nanotechnology will bring different effects and entails different risks. First generation Nanotech will carry environmental risks. The question is always about nanotoxicity. It will therefore require (i) sufficient testing methods and (ii) development of (iii) pre-market testing for health and environmental impact, (iv) life cycle assessment (v) methods for reducing exposure.

Coping method: Reform and adaptation of environmental and health laws

Second and third generation nanotech carries a different risk in the form of system instabilities: "your biosensors is malfunction", "the nanodynamo isn't working", "how come my drug is directly excreted out of body"?

Coping method: Consumer law oriented. Reform on product liability/service liability rules.

The last generation of nanotechnology -- molecular manufacturing -- will be the most complicated and bring enermous affect. First generation oriented legislations will be absolutely obsolete. Some second generation laws can probably inspire the fourth generation nanotechnology regulation, but gaps are unavoidable. CRN is the only organisation that focuses specifically on fourth generation nanotechnologies. All of these risks must be dealt from now on as even early studies on the fourth generation nanotechnology may not be sufficient to mitigate the risk.

Possible coping method: (i) Informational law oriented, major overhaul on information
management laws. (ii) Application of legal futurism studies




(Many Thanks to: Mike Treder/CRN)

 

, , , ,

When nano turns washing machine into pesticide

Saturday, December 9, 2006

The EPA's nanosilver regulation still attracts me, as it reflects how a regulation that was initially intended to regulate pesticide can now be extended into device such as the samsung washing machine. As we have previously discussed, the EPA is investigating if the silver ions released by nanosilver appliances can kill friendly bacterias and harm human.

There has been news and post suggesting that the background of the regulation is unfounded since:
  1. People has been using silver appliances for ages (Yeah, for sure. But the problem with nanotoxicity is that, the behaviours and characteristics of nanoparticle of silver is different than its bulk form, right? Or is it the case that the old ages silver are already "nano" in essence?)
  2. The effect of silver in drinking water is cosmetic. (Does that apply to common silver or nanosilver?)
  3. Nanosilver ions bonds with chlorine and are inert.
  4. Other pharmaceutical that kills germs are flushed out of toilet every year, but they are not subjected to regulation
  5. There are so many nanomaterials out there, but why only regulate silver?
  6. Alternative anti-microbe such as Triclosan, which may be contained in Microban products is not regulated.
To Howard Lovy, nanosilver nay not be nanotech at all, it is simply "...nanoscale stuff being sprinkled into products". If we talk about jurisdiction, the EPA does have all the power to regulate anything that kills germs as "pesticide". The FIFRA seemed to take account only towards its effect. Whatever it is outside medicines, if it kills germs, its pesticide. The problem is, which one is more dangerous to the environment, triclosan from my toothpaste or some nanosilver coating?

Seeing the EPA revoked its previous decision, it is likely that they are of the opinion that the ions released by the nanosilver washing machines pose a threat to the environment and will therefore require a pesticide registration.

The moral message of the case:
  1. Effect-focus regulation can incorporate as many as nanotech product it deems necessary, so long as the effect is triggered (e.g. the effect is killing germs). The pros: broader preventive measure. The cons: overbroad interpretation, can include anything. On the other hand, some effect focused regulation constructed in bulk-scale chemicals paradigm (Referenced Dose, parts per million, etc) may be useless for nanotech.
  2. Interrelated and overlapped regulation may occur due to nanotech inventions. If today a washing machine is a pesticide, maybe some kind of lamps would be drugs tomorrow.
  3. Process-focused regulation is more precise, but not much can be constructed due to lack of nanotoxicology data.
  4. What you regulate today maybe obsolete in a few years. The tech progressed too fast, beyond our current capacity to legislate.

 

, , , , ,

Nanosilver under FIFRA

Thursday, December 7, 2006

The first time EPA said it will regulate Nanosilver, I thought it was going to be regulated in a specific legislation, independently of pesticide. Well, it didn't. All products containing nanoparticle of silver is to be regulated under the Federal Insecticide, Fungicide, and Rodenticide Act (FIFRA).

FIFRA defines "active ingridient" as (§ 136. Definitions):
(1) in the case of a pesticide other than a plant regulator, defoliant, desiccant, or nitrogen stabilizer, an ingredient which will prevent, destroy, repel, or mitigate any pest;
(2) in the case of a plant regulator, an ingredient which, through physiological action, will accelerate or retard the rate of growth or rate of maturation or otherwise alter the behavior of ornamental or crop plants or the product thereof;
(3) in the case of a defoliant, an ingredient which will cause the leaves or foliage to drop from a plant;
(4) in the case of a desiccant, an ingredient which will artificially accelerate the drying of plant tissue; and
(5) in the case of a nitrogen stabilizer, an ingredient which will prevent or hinder the process of nitrification, denitrification, ammonia volatilization, or urease production through action affecting soil bacteria.

FIFRA applies to all types of pesticides, including insecticides, herbicides, fungicides, rodenticides and antimicrobials. Some minimum risk pesticides (green pesticides included) are exempted.

Thus, EPA Regulation can have a wide scope of various indoor use consumer goods and products used in health care. Antimicrobial pesticides are defined as "substances or mixtures of substances used to destroy or limit the growth of microorganisms, whether bacteria, viruses, or fungi -- many of which are harmful-on inanimate objects and surfaces". So, anyone that claims that its product can kill germs, they are subjected to inspection. It is to be noted that EPA's regulation on antimicrobes differs slightly from general pesticide regulation, in that it obligates special efficacy test.

Anti decay coatings may be exempted as a "treated article":
An article or a substance treated with or containing a pesticide to protect the article or substance itself (for example, paint treated with a pesticide to protect the paint coating, or wood products treated to protect the wood against insects or fungus infestation), if the pesticide is registered for such use.
(Note the "registered for such use" condition). However, if they claim to kill E.coli, S.aureus, Salmonella sp. or Streptococcus sp. they must be registered as a pesticide as "it make a public health claim that goes beyond the preservation of the treated article itself". This means that some deodorant/absorpent might be required to register themselves under FIFRA. Those used for human and animal (antibiotics) may not be regulated under FIFRA but are subjected to FDA review.

Some of nanosilver products (such as the Samsung Washing Machine) are actually used for coating. Some other however are clear anti-microbes. Nanosilver has been presumed to be able to kill viruses such as HIV and Avian Flu and is currently under intensive research.

If used as merely as coating, Nanosilver may enjoy exemption. However, if producer claims that the coating kill germs (such as used in advertisement of washing machines) then they are subjected to review. If used as drugs, then it is the FDA's jurisdiction. The EU has yet to regulate nanosilver, but you can always checkout the EU's pesticide homepage here.

Nano-silver has been used in a wide range of product, either as coating or as anti-microbes, as used in liquid condoms, soaps, dishwashing liquid. Some of these "food and drug" type nanosilver product has been manufactured in China and Korea. I think they might have difficulty if produced in USA. You can see them here.