Was the nanotech IP landscape barren?

Back in 2005, Lux Research, in partnership with Foley & Lardner, released a report entitled the "Nanotech IP Landscape." In the two years since, we haven't heard too much. The authors then noted:

Looking into the future, we believe that nanotech will, for the most part, avoid a self-destructive IP war. More likely is a flood of cross-licensing agreements by start-ups, and bundles of IP for specific applications licensed by groups of large corporations. We advise companies filing nanotech patents to go for claims of intermediate scope—not just broad claims—and balance patenting in hot areas with patenting in cold ones, recognizing that the likely uses for nanomaterials have historically not been accurately predicted.

No IP wars, but no flood of cross-licensing either, and not many big products. Sort of like Y2K.

And, how many people remember that Wall Street Journal article: "Whatever happened to the buckyball?" Now, it might be: what's a buckyball?

And yes Ruben Serrato and co-authors in Nanotech Law & Business cited Quillen and Webster AND the 97% patent grant rate figure. Voodoo math again. And they cited US Patent 5,424,054.