Technology Law Source

Achieving Everydayness

By Porter Wright on

Since the end of the Second World War, many innovations and discoveries have been hyped – sometimes overhyped – as "the next big thing" that would revolutionize the way people lived, worked, traveled, etc. Television was envisioned as the way to spread education, culture and enlightenment throughout the world. The invention of the computer and the emergence of the internet were seen as changing forever the way businesses were supposed to be run, how commerce would be conducted, and how we would all communicate. The Segway was seen as an environmentally friendly way to deal with traffic, the cost of gas, etc.

Perhaps it’s inevitable that "the next big thing" eventually becomes simply another thing in our daily lives, a part of everyday life.  According to a recent article in the Boston Globe by Robert Gavin, "What’s up with nanotech?", nanotechnology may be starting to achieve that same level of everydayness.

As Gavin notes in his article, nanotechnology has begun to fade from the public’s eye. Nanotech industries and businesses dealing with nanoparticles and nanotechnologies have become fairly well established. Nanoindustries are reaching a stage in the maturation process where their products have entered the commercial market and are now being incorporated into the products of other industries and businesses and helping to make the breakthroughs that will improve those products, particularly in the pharmaceutical industry. To paraphrase one advertising slogan from a few years ago, "Nanotech doesn’t make the products you use, it makes them better".

According to Gavin, "In many ways, a lack of sexiness has lowered nanotechnology’s profile."  It’s achieving everydayness, reaching maturity at a greater speed than other innovative industries, such as information technologies did. As with those industries that came before it, nanotech will still be making advancements and new discoveries that will lead to improvements in existing products and services and the emergence of newer industries and the formation of new companies that will develop those discoveries and put them to use, creating new jobs for skilled employees, as well as sparking the growth of spin off businesses, much as the mass production of automobiles lead to the development of other businesses such as dealerships, repair shops, suppliers, etc. 

Massachusetts Data Security Requirements Go Into Effect

By Porter Wright on

A new Massachusetts data security regulation — the “Standards for the Protection of Personal Information of Residents of the Commonwealth” (.PDF) — has gone into effect as of March 1, 2010.  The new regulation is intended to apply to any business that collects or retains personal information of Massachusetts residents.

Personal information, as defined under the regulation, includes a first name or first initial and last name in combination with any one of a (i) Social Security number; (ii) driver’s license number or state identification card number; or (iii) financial account or credit card number with access codes.

Continue Reading

NIST/CNST Announces Funding for Post Doctoral/Visiting Fellowship Programs

By Porter Wright on

In a notice published in the Federal Register on March 24, 2010, the Center for Nanoscale Science and Technology (CNST), part of the National Institute of Standards & Technology (NIST), announced the establishment of a financial assistance program to develop and implement a post doctoral/visiting fellowship program for the purposes of "promoting research, training and practical experience in nanoscale science and technology and to advance CNST’s mission to support the development of nanotechnology through research on measurement and fabrication methods, standards and technology, and by operating a state of the art nanofabrication facility, the Nanofab".

The primary objectives of the Post Doctoral and Visiting Fellows programs are:

1) Advancing, through cooperative Efforts with universities, the NIST/CNST mission

2) To provide future nanotechnologists with real experience in performing research at CNST under a mentorship with one of CNST’s Project Leaders

3) To give scientists and engineers in the private sector a chance to gain advanced training and expertise via performing research at CNST in collaboration with Project Leaders

4) To give Post Doctoral Researchers and visiting fellow professional development opportunities

5) To encourage scientists in industry, government and academia to participate in research at CNST.

Applications for the Postdoc/Visiting fellows programs will be evaluated on the following criteria:

1) Technical merit

2) The overall qualifications of the applicants

3) "Quality of the plan for providing support for travel and local expenses for students and scientists to participate in research at the CNST".

4) Cost of the proposed project.

Further information on the application process may be found in the FR notice. Applications, either in hard copy form or electronic form must be received by April 30, 2010.

The establishment of this program represents a recognition by the Obama administration of a need to support Post Docs in gaining a practical knowledge that will complement the theoretical  knowledge they’ve gained in the classroom, a practical knowledge that can be transmitted to future generations of students and to the establishment of a trained and prepared nanotech workforce. For scientists and nanotechnologists already in the workforce, the program offers a chance to add to their skills and the body of existing research. The program should be seen as an investment in the future prosperity of the United States.

Welcome to the Hotel Nanotel

By Porter Wright on

Welcome to the hotel california
Such a lovely place
Such a lovely face
Plenty of room at the hotel california
Any time of year, you can find it here
Don Felder, Glenn Fry, Don Henley, "Hotel California"

Hotels emerged in the Gilded Age as destinations, the places for the wealthy, particularly in New York, to go and be seen. Some hotels have become almost legendary, such as the Waldorf-Astoria or the Algonquin Hotel, whose dining room became the favoured hangout of the "Algonquin Round Table", made up of writers such as Dorothy Parker, Harold Ross, the founding editor of The New Yorker, and George S. Kaufman. Some hotels, such as the ones in the W Hotel chain, have revived the idea of the hotel as a luxury destination for the wealthy and chic, as places to see and to be seen. Some fictional hotels, such as the Hotel California or The Royale, are used as metaphors for Hell.

The Nano Excel Corporation is in the process of building adifferent type of hotel, the Nanotel Hotel and Resort, to be located in Hyderabad’s HITEC City.

The Nanotel Hotel hopes to make it’s mark by being a "healthcare hotel and resort", using paint that incorporates nano photo catalysts to prevent dust from collecting on walls, nanotech based antibacterial towels and bedsheets and water purifying showers.

Nano Excel Corp. hopes to have the first of a chain of Nanotels open by the middle of April. If the first one goes over well, Nano Excel plans to open two more Nanotel resorts in the city of Goa later this year.

 

First Nano-Specific Insurance: Lexington Insurance Company Introduces LexNanoShield

By Porter Wright on

To our knowledge, this press release announces the first nano-specific liability insurance coverage available in the United States. Many nano-related businesses have been waiting a long time for a product like this. It will be interesting to see industry reaction.

Lexington Insurance Company Introduces LexNanoShieldSM
March 30, 2010 10:15 AM Eastern Daylight Time

NEW YORK–(EON: Enhanced Online News)–Lexington Insurance Company, a Chartis company, today introduced LexNanoShield, an integrated insurance product and array of risk management services designed for firms whose principal business is manufacturing nanoparticles or nanomaterials, or using them in their processes.

“LexNanoShield can help insureds assess and manage these new nanotechnology exposures.”
For the exposures faced by these pioneering companies, LexNanoShield includes liability coverage that provides protection for general liability, product liability, product pollution legal liability and product recall liability exposures. In addition, first party product recall coverage is available to reimburse expenses incurred if a product containing nanoparticles or nanomaterials is recalled from the market for safety reasons. LexNanoShield also provides insureds with legal, technical and loss control consulting services to help develop, implement and assess nanotechnology-specific risk management programs.

“The enhanced reactivity of materials on the nanoscale has led to sunscreens you can’t see, clothes that don’t wrinkle, and paint coatings that don’t scratch. Because many of these products and others like them are relatively new, they require unique coverage and service,” said Tom McLaughlin, Lexington’s Senior Vice President of Specialty Casualty. “LexNanoShield can help insureds assess and manage these new nanotechnology exposures.”
 

For more information regarding LexNanoShield, contact Bob Nevin, Product Line Manager, at 617-772-4546 or robert.nevin@chartisinsurance.com, or Tom McLaughlin, Senior Vice President of Lexington’s Specialty Casualty unit, at 617-330-8555 or thomas.mclaughlin@chartisinsurance.com. You can also visit www.lexingtoninsurance.com.
 

New Canadian Nanotech Bill

By Porter Wright on

Frequently on this site we have discussed legislation introduced in Congress that would have an impact on Nanotechnology, most recently just a few weeks ago with the introduction of S.3117, the Promote  Nanotechnology in the Schools Act of 2010. Legislation affecting nanotechnology, nanoparticles, nanomaterials or nanoindustry are also being introduced in other national legislatures. Recently,  Peter Julian, MP, a member of Canada’s New Democratic Party, introduced Bill C-494, which would affect the regulation of nanotechnology in Canada by amending the Canadian Environmental Protection  Act of 1999 in several ways. Among these would be the following:

1)The Ministers of Health and the Environment would be required to "conduct research or studies relating to Nanotechnology, including nanomaterials, nanoparticles" and "sources of nanomaterials, and nanoparticles, how these would be transported, their effect on human health and the environment, how to develop and apply risks assessments and tests, and how to develop methods of preventing and mitigating risks"

2) "The Ministers shall establish a National Inventory respecting nanotechnology, including nanomaterials and nanoparticles. . . . " This National Inventory would then be published "in any manner that the Minister considers appropriate".

Similar language may be found in the reports published by groups such as Friends of the Earth and also in language being considered by the European Parliament.

3) Nanomaterials would be added to the Canadian Domestic Substances List if the Minister (which Minister, Health or Environment, is not specified in Bill C-494) "is satisfied that it

(a) was manufactured in or imported into Canada by any person;

And

(b) entered or was released into the environment without being subject to conditions under this or any other act of Parliament or of the legislature of a province".

If a nanomaterial does not appear on the Domestic Substances List, it’s use, manufacture, and/or import could be restricted.

4) Bill C-494 amends "significant new activity" in respect to nanomaterials to mean "any activity that results or may result in

a) the entry or release of the nanomaterial into the environment in a quantity or concentration that, in the Ministers opinion, is significantly greater than the quantity or concentration  . . .that previously entered or was released into the environment or

b) the entry or release of the nanomaterial into the environment or the exposure or potential exposure of the environment to the nanomaterial in a manner and circumstances that, in the Ministers opinion, are significantly different from the manner and circumstances in which the nanomaterial previously entered or was released into the environment or of any previous exposure of the environment to the nanomaterial".

5) Information regarding nanomaterials would be turned over to the Ministers to determine if a nanomaterial "is toxic or capable of becoming toxic". Should the Ministers, after reviewing the information "suspect that a nanomaterial is toxic or capable of becoming toxic" they may either

A) Permit the manufacture or import of the nanomaterial "subject to any conditions that the Ministers may specify"

B) Prohibit the manufacture or import of the nanomaterials  or

C) Request the submission of additional information or test results " that the Ministers consider necessary" to determine if the nanomaterial is toxic or capable of becoming toxic.

The prohibition on manufacture or import would expire after two years or on publication of a notice of proposed regulation in the Canada Gazette; the prohibition would then expire when the proposed regulation entered into force.

This bill is a step towards regulation of nanotechnology and nanomaterials in Canada. In a Press Release, Mr. Julian is quoted as saying that "There is a need for public policy governed by the parliamentary principle. . . . We need a proper balance between protecting Canadians from potential harmful consequences and allowing us to reap the benefits of nanotechnologies. . .."

While there is a need to err on the side of caution is a sound basis for regulation, Bill C-494, by leaving many decisions to be based on the opinions of the Ministers of Health and Environment, or more likely their staff members to whom they could delegate the authority, would seem to leave open the possibility of arbitrariness; Ministers could decide to prohibit the manufacture, import or use of a nanomaterial despite all indications that the nanomaterial and its use are safe and do not expose the environment or humans to any danger. A further problem is the use of the phrase "capable of being toxic", which can be interpreted very broadly. A third problem may lie in the two year prohibition itself. Many nanotech companies are small and precariously funded; a two year prohibition on manufacture or import could very well drive them into bankruptcy, depriving Canadians of the benefits of nanotechnology mentioned in Mr. Julian’s press release.

As the bill was only introduced on March 10 of this year, it is still in Committee and has not been scheduled for debate in Canada’s House of Commons (see status information here) and so may be changed in Committee or during the course of debate.

Opening of .co ccTLD Draws Interest as .com Typo Variant

By Porter Wright on

A country code top-level domain (ccTLD) is an Internet top-level domain generally used or reserved for a sovereign state or territory. There are currently over 270 such domain extensions— from the Ascension Island (.ac) to Zimbabwe (.zw)—delegated by the Internet Assigned Numbers Authority (IANA). A number of the world’s countries have licensed their TLDs for worldwide commercial use—usually when the TLD has coincidental alternative meanings making it especially marketable. Examples include Tuvalu and the Federated States of Micronesia, small island-states in the Pacific, sell domain names using the .tv and .fm TLDs respectively.

The .co top level domain extension is the latest ccTLD to draw interests from domain registrants not located in the country indicated by the domain extension. The .co extension, the country code top-level domain assigned to the nation of Colombia, is significant to brand owners because Internet users searching for brand owners’ Web sites frequently mistype ".com” as ".co."

Continue Reading

Identity Theft Protection Company to Pay $12 Million to Settle FTC Claims, State AG Actions

By Porter Wright on

According to an FTC press release on March 3, 2010 and as reported in various media outlet reports, like this one from The New York Times, LifeLock, Inc., an identity theft protection company, has agreed to pay $11 million to the Federal Trade Commission and $1 million to a group of 35 state attorneys general to settle charges that the company used false claims to promote its identity theft protection services.

The FTC claims and state attorneys general actions appear to have been centered around LifeLock’s representations that its protections against identity theft were complete, absolute, and guaranteed.  FTC Chairman Jon Leibowitz noted in the FTC’s press release,

"While LifeLock promised consumers complete protection against all types of identity theft, in truth, the protection it actually provided left enough holes that you could drive a truck through it."

Continue Reading

President’s Council Evaluates National Nanotechnology Initiative

By Porter Wright on

This article originally appeared on the National Nanomanufacturing Network’s InterNano website earlier today. It is licensed under Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivs 3.0 Unported.

Maxine Savitz[1] and Ed Penhoe[2] provided a recent presentation summarizing the highlights of the President’s Council of Advisors on Science and Technology (PCAST)[3] report on the status of the US National Nanotechnology Initiative (NNI) at a public meeting held at the National Academics on March 12, 2010.

Ms. Savitz provided a brief review at the beginning of the presentation regarding how, when, and why NNI was formed; its history from 2000 – 2010; and some of the participants in the PCAST review process. Participants included representatives from DuPont, IBM, A123 Systems, Nanocomp Technologies, Rice, Harvard, Caltech, Sandia National Labs, and the Woodrow Wilson Institute. Ms Savitz also explained that the group held two prior working meetings to solicit input from government agencies, the legislative and executive branches, as well as outside stakeholders. Finally, she explained that PCAST’s report has three major thematic areas: NNI program management; NNI output and work product; and NNI environmental, health, and safety programs and strategies.

Ed Penhoet then provided an update regarding NNI’s continued successes. He noted that the US is currently the world leader in nanotechnology and commercialization, but that other nations are gaining fast — particularly in Asia and Europe. He further noted that NNI has had a substantial impact on the US nanotechnology industry over the past ten years, which can be seen in the larger number of nanotechnology patents filed, nano-related publications, and nano-related products hitting the commercial market during that period.

Mr. Penhoet further explained that while NNI is being effectively managed, there is still room for some improvement and greater coordination.

For an example, Mr. Penhoet pointed out that there is a lack of basic underlying data from which to analyze the economics of nano-related research, development, and commercialization in the US. Thus, it is difficult to precisely quantify the economic effectiveness of the NNI in measurable terms.

As another example, Mr. Penhoet also mentioned the need to identify and understand potential nano-related risks — both for purposes of fundamental science, and also to provide a clear regulatory environment and path for commercialization. While undoubtedly a significant portion of PCAST’s written report touches on these issues, the topic was only briefly mentioned in passing during the presentation.

Mr. Penhoet then spent the majority of his presentation explaining the five major recommendations embodied in PCAST’s written report:

  • Increase NNI funding for manufacturing research while maintaining support for basic research.
  • Strengthen the NNCO, the NNI coordinating entity, with additional funds and a broader mandate.
  • Require that metrics be developed to track benefits of nanotechnology such as job creation.
  • Develop a cross agency strategy that links EHS research and knowledge gaps and decision making needs.
  • Expedite the citizenship review process for those receiving advanced degrees in science and engineering.

The presentation closed with comments by several PCAST members regarding (i) potential methods for developing the underlying economic data needed to properly evaluate nano-related job creation and return on investment; and (ii) potential methods for increasing retention rates of foreign students obtaining advanced nano-related degrees in the US by reducing and/or streamlining citizenship restrictions.

PCAST voted to accept and approve the report after it is amended to reflect the comments discussed during the presentation.

 

References
[1] Director of the Washington Advisory Group, an LECG Company. Ms. Savitz is the former Deputy Assistant Secretary for Conservation, US Department of Energy. Prior to her DOE service, she was program manager for Research Applied to National Needs at the National Science Foundation. Following her government service, she served in executive positions in the private sector, including: President of Lighting Research Institute, assistant to the vice president for engineering at The Garrett Corporation, and General Manager of Allied Signal Ceramic Components. She recently retired from the position of General Manager for Technology Partnerships at Honeywell.

[2]President of the Gordon and Betty Moore Foundation. Mr. Penhoet is the former dean of the School of Public Health at the University of California, Berkeley, prior to which he cofounded and managed the Chiron Corporation. Prior that he was a faculty member of the Biochemistry Department of U.C. Berkeley. Mr. Penhot currently serves as the vice chairman of the Independent Citizen’s Oversight Committee which oversees the California Institute for Regenerative Medicine created by the passage of Proposition 71, the stem cell initiative.

[3] http://www.whitehouse.gov/administration/eop/ostp/pcast.

 

S. 3117, Promote Nanotechnology in the Schools Act of 2010

By Porter Wright on

While much of the media and public’s attention was focused on Senator Dodd’s introduction of an amended financial services reform bill and the ongoing debate over the health care reform bill, Senators Ron Wyden (D-OR) and Olympia Snowe (R-ME) introduced S. 3117, the "Promote Nanotechnology in the Schools Act of 2010" (the link is to Senator Wyden’s introductory remarks; the text of S. 3117 is not available from THOMAS yet).

Noting that "nanotechnology represents an opportunity to provide long-term, well-paid employment for millions of Americans"  and "to ensure that many of the needed jobs will be created here in the U.S., it is necessary to provide our students with the tools that will provide the skills and knowledge that nanotechnology companies need", S. 3117 would direct the National Science Foundation to establish a grant program that would provide up to $400,000 to schools, community colleges and colleges and universities to cover the cost of purchasing equipment and materials to be used in instructing students in nanotechnology, with the schools receiving the grants having to provide 1/4 of the grant amount as matching funds. For example, if a college received the full $400,000 it would need to put up $100,000 of its own funds.

If this sounds familiar, a similar program of grants from the NSF is at the heart of HR 4502, the Nanotechnology Education Act introduced by Reps. Wu and Lipinski in January of this year and discussed here. HR 4502 was assigned to the House Committee on Science and Technology.

Both of these bills recognize that without a trained and educated workforce, the nanotech industry in the United States

will not be able to reach its full potential. Without a qualified workforce that will allow nanotech companies in this country to scale-up, foreign competitors will be able to fill the vacuum in the global marketplace. With the Promote Nanotechnology in Schools Act, this country will put the resources into place that will prepare our students to meet the needs of the emerging nanotech economy.

S, 3117 was assigned to the Senate Committee on Health, Education, Labor and Pensions. When the text of the bill becomes available,  this entry will be updated. As with other legislation introduced in the 111th Congress that would affect Nanotechnology and Nanoindustry, we will monitor S. 3117’s progress and provide updates.

Senator Wyden, the Co-Chair of the Congressional Nanotechnology Caucus, ended his remarks by calling upon his fellow Senators

to move quickly not only to pass this legislation but also the National Nanotechnology Initiative Amendments Act reauthorization. These important bills will help advance nanotechnology in this country, and protect the U.S.’s position at the forefront of innovation and economic opportunity.

 

LexBlog