international computers ltd (icl) a list, but useful for search.

some, and also tony hoare think it was the ICL, "founded in 1968 under the Wilson Labour Government in the Industrial Expansion Act as part of its industrial rationalisation programme in order to create an international presence in computers.", why britain's microelectronic industry lost the electronic war, a phrase sebastian de ferranti used in an interview with the financial times, 16 march 1966. (john wilson)

in 1951 bell labs held their first transistor symposium and began to licensing transistor technology for a $25.000 fee. At this time, Centralab became interested in making transistors and acquired a license.

By 1958 i had decided to leave (Centralab) and began looking for another job. I talked with several companies and found that IBM had committed to technology similar to the thick-film work i had done at Centralab. i felt they had made a basic mistake by choosing a substrate that was much too small. Motorola was quite interested and thought i could work part-time on my ideas about miniaturization. Texas Instruments was more enthusiastic than the others and offered me a job working in miniaturization full-time ...

In the early 1950s, the Englishman Geoff Dummer of the Royal Radar Establishment suggested that all electronics could be made as a single block. He mentioned the use of a amplifyer layers, resistive layers and things of that sort ... But Dummer gave no proposal for how to do it ...

In 1956, Dummer gave a small contract to a British manufacturer to build such a device. They were completely unsuccessful, partly because they worked with the grown-junction technology ... and tried to connect the various layers. While his device failed, Dummer was on target in general. (jack s. kilby, 2000)

not just about geoff dummer but technology transfer and the british microelectronic industry in generell, a text from john wilson on confused signals, from 1950-75.

finally reading tr reid's book the chip. a lot of new information. didn't know anything about the patent war between texas instruments and fairchild that went on for 10 years.

robert noyce got it first, his application moved through the patent office faster than those from kilby (texas instruments), even it was the second version of the patent. robert n. noyce semiconductor device-and-lead structure, filed july 30, 1959.

kilby's patent miniaturized electronic circuits, filed february 6, 1959.

the case went to the patent interference department and kilby got the patent granted back at 1964, but the fairchild patent lawyer didn't give up ...

the problems with kilby's patent were the drawings.

by 1964, the time borovoy took over on behalf of fairchild, the industry had largely determined what an integrated circuit would look like; it didn't look anything like the drawing in kilby's patent application.

kilby - noyce. borovoy's line became the weakness on interconnections. on november 6, 1969, tr reid writes on, the court issued its opinion:

this time, the decision dealt exclusively with the difference between 'laid down on' and 'adherent to'. the judges had found roger borovoy's argument appetizing - and swallowed it whole. 'kilby has not demonstrated' the opinion said 'that the term laid down had ... or has since aquired a meaning in electronic or semiconductor arts which necessarily connotes adherence.'

once again robert noyce was the official inventor of the microchip. ellsworth h. mosher, the lawyer for texas instruments (ti) tried to turn it around again, writing to the supreme court, but six month later the answer came back: denied.

it was on fairchild to 'exploit its patent', but as reid says, fairchild and texas instruments and other companies had already cut a deal in 1966:

ti and fairchild each conceded that the other had some right to the historic invention. the two companies agreed to grant licences to each other for integrated circuit production. any other company that wanted to enter the market then had to arrange separate licences with both texas instruments and fairchild.

jack kilby's nobel lecture from 2000: "turning potential into realities: the invention of the integrated circuit".

sometimes i am astonished when people ask for money for an article/speech that was held as i am concerned in a public domain.worldscinet wants me to pay 19,90 $ for it. hombre, what for?? copy and paste?