|
|
|
|
|
Posted by on March 7, 2008, 9:47 pm
If you were Registered and logged in, you could reply and use other advanced thread options
I was reading the IBM history and there was some info per recent
discussions:
1) Invention of the transistor: it was suggested here that Bell Lab's
invention of the transistor was not that great of an accomplishment.
However, the IBM history describes some of the solid-state physics
work specifically at Bell Labs that led up to the invention and
continued improvements afterwards. It said Bell Labs was the expert
on solid-state physics and semi-conductors.
This would suggest the invention of the transistor was indeed quite
an accomplishment and Bell Labs deserves the credit.
2) Technical Journals: Both the IBM and Bell Labs histories report
that one of the reasons their technical journals were published was to
disclose inventions/developments not worthy of patent but to ensure
freedom of action with those inventions. That is, by public
disclosure no one else could patent those developments and restrict
the company in its work.
While both IBM and Bell had powerful research organizations, there
were some critical inventions by outsiders they had to buy at
considerable cost, and some inventions they didn't think worth
patentable but were actually rather valuable.
Bell had to buy the Gray pay telephone set, which was used for 50
years. IBM had to buy some patents for core memory.
Both IBM and Bell had consent decrees with the government and had to
license at reasonable costs their patents.
|
 
| |
Posted by mc on March 8, 2008, 6:24 pm
If you were Registered and logged in, you could reply and use other advanced thread options
> 2) Technical Journals: Both the IBM and Bell Labs histories report
> that one of the reasons their technical journals were published was to
> disclose inventions/developments not worthy of patent but to ensure
> freedom of action with those inventions. That is, by public
> disclosure no one else could patent those developments and restrict
> the company in its work.
Right. That is why many academic researchers (including me) issue "lab
reports" on the Web. They are a public record that I thought of something.
|
|
Posted by AES on March 8, 2008, 6:25 pm
If you were Registered and logged in, you could reply and use other advanced thread options
hancock4@bbs.cpcn.com wrote:
> I was reading the IBM history and there was some info per recent
> discussions:
>
> 1) Invention of the transistor: it was suggested here that Bell Lab's
> invention of the transistor was not that great of an accomplishment.
> However, the IBM history describes some of the solid-state physics
> work specifically at Bell Labs that led up to the invention and
> continued improvements afterwards. It said Bell Labs was the expert
> on solid-state physics and semi-conductors.
> This would suggest the invention of the transistor was indeed quite
> an accomplishment and Bell Labs deserves the credit.
[1] M. Riordan and L. Hoddeson, Crystal Fire: The Invention of the
Transistor and the Birth of the Information Age, New York: W. W. Norton,
1997.
Excellent detailed historical treatment (IMHO, anyway).
[2] Broken Genius: The Rise and Fall of William Shockley, Creator of
the Electronic Age (Paperback)
by Joel N. Shurkin (Author)
V. unflattering treatment of Schockley by Joel Shurkin, who was at one
time Director of News and Pubs at Stanford (or Stanford Med School) --
and who didn't start out intending to write nearly as unflattering a
treatment.
[3] Electrons and holes in semiconductors, with applications to
transistor electronics (Unknown Binding)
by William Shockley (Author)
Have a copy of one of the earliest editions of this book on my office
bookshelves, acquired as a ref book when I had to fill in to teach our
undergrad intro to semiconductor devices course many decades ago. It's
a *superb* work, IMHO. Maybe I'd better keep my office door locked;
just discovered that an amazon used book affiliate also has exactly one
copy, listed as above, and priced at $497.97.
|
|
Posted by Scott Dorsey on March 10, 2008, 4:37 pm
If you were Registered and logged in, you could reply and use other advanced thread options >I was reading the IBM history and there was some info per recent
>discussions:
>
>1) Invention of the transistor: it was suggested here that Bell Lab's
>invention of the transistor was not that great of an accomplishment.
>However, the IBM history describes some of the solid-state physics
>work specifically at Bell Labs that led up to the invention and
>continued improvements afterwards. It said Bell Labs was the expert
>on solid-state physics and semi-conductors.
> This would suggest the invention of the transistor was indeed quite
>an accomplishment and Bell Labs deserves the credit.
The invention of the transistor was a big engineering accomplishment,
but what was REALLY big was for folks to decide it was worth doing in
the first place.
It's true that the original point-contact transistor wasn't all that
useful a device, and it took Fairchild's mesa process to make reliable
inexpensive transistors. But that gets into development and not research.
Interestingly, the principle by which the FET operates was demonstrated
around the turn of the century, but nobody bothered looking into it any
farther.
>2) Technical Journals: Both the IBM and Bell Labs histories report
>that one of the reasons their technical journals were published was to
>disclose inventions/developments not worthy of patent but to ensure
>freedom of action with those inventions. That is, by public
>disclosure no one else could patent those developments and restrict
>the company in its work.
That makes sense. These days, though, prior art does not seem to be
any bar toward obtaining a patent, sadly. This reduces some of the
argument for that today.
--scott
--
"C'est un Nagra. C'est suisse, et tres, tres precis."
|
|
Posted by on March 10, 2008, 6:28 pm
If you were Registered and logged in, you could reply and use other advanced thread options
> The invention of the transistor was a big engineering accomplishment,
> but what was REALLY big was for folks to decide it was worth doing in
> the first place.
>From reading the IBM and Bell histories, both knew right at the start
the transistor would be a powerful improvement for them. I presume
they recognized it would save power and last longer right away.
Both organizations started building transistors to learn how to make
them and their characteristics, and then using the transistors in
different devices as replacements for vaccum tubes. It took quite
some time and research before transistors could function as well as a
tube, and then still more time until the price dropped enough.
For IBM, they got their early transistors by cracking open diodes and
converting them, by hand, into a transistor. Eventually they got
their own crystal developer ovens.
IBM made one foulup: IBM developed powerful machines at considerable
expense to make transistors in quantity and gave it to T.I. TI then
became very rich on this selling it to multiple customers and a
competitor to IBM later on.
Transistors were only half the battle. Manufacturing them in quantity
and quality and low cost was the other.
|
| Similar Threads | Posted | | Tech Companies Eye Telecom Market | July 5, 2006, 2:20 pm |
| The Only Exciting Thing In Tech? | May 9, 2005, 10:20 am |
| Re: The Only Exciting Thing In Tech? | May 10, 2005, 9:48 am |
| Tech Trends in 2006 | December 28, 2005, 12:03 am |
| CBS, Fox Show Different Approaches to Tech | January 22, 2006, 11:26 pm |
| Re: CBS, Fox Show Different Approaches to Tech | January 23, 2006, 11:14 am |
| Tech Gadgets Banned in USA | October 5, 2006, 3:25 pm |
| FBI Disputes Reports of Tech Woes | June 9, 2005, 10:17 am |
| FCC Coordinating Tech Aid for Katrina Disaster | September 3, 2005, 4:29 pm |
| Qwest Tech Shot in Minneapolis | September 7, 2005, 5:55 am |
|
|
|
![followup--transistors, tech journals [telecom]](/images/header.jpg)
Yahoo! 
Google 
Windows Live 
del.icio.us 
digg 
Netscape 
XML site map