Please see David Cruse's message of 1/8/02, "Re: [biofuel] Solid catalyst,", message # 10743:
>The famed "Fox/Ginosaur" process using a solid catalyst, (which to >this date) hasn't been used commercially, is on Delphion.com. I was >lucky enough to download a copy of the Fox/Ginosaur patent from the >Delphion website before they started charging a fee to access the >International Patents. It is at best vague and very careful to be as >vague as possible with all the info in the Patent. The Lockheed >Martin Idaho Technologies Company is the company that actually owns >the Patent and they don't seem to be rushing into production of >biodiesel with the process so that should tell you that the process >probably isn't all that good ! http://groups.yahoo.com/group/biofuel/message/10743 [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: >Re the solid catalyst that was presumedly developed at Idaho National Energy >Lab about three years ago. How much info was divulged at the time and was >any attempt ever made to patent the technology? Patent laws change, but the >last time I looked at it, after a public disclosure, the inventor has one >year to initiate a patent application. If after a year has elapsed and no >attempt is made to patent it, the technology everts to the public domain. >One of the issues a government contractor lab would want to avoid would be to >avoid the appearance of preferential treatment. If the technology were of >critical importance in an industry, such as it is alleged is the case here, >one way to avoid that appearance of preferential treatment would be to let >the technology revert into the public domain. Alternatively, if the >technology were patented, and the technology was not of any particular value >to an Agency mission program, why risk the charge of preferential treatment >by, say, allowing one of the "big eight" to buy and bury it? Then, in >addition, there are some misguided government people who think the best way >to put the technology to the greatest use is to allow anyone to use and >profit from it. Methinks they probably know better, but this position suits >their purpose, which, as indicated, is to avoid being put in a position of >being accused of preferential treatment. I suggest do a search to determine >whether the invention has been sufficiently disclosed, followed by an elapsed >time of at least one year, to cause the invention to revert to the public >domain. Since you have the name of the inventors, do a literature search >to see what turns up. The procedure used to be, when I worked at a national >lab as a development engineer, to submit the disclosure to the government >contractor patent ofifice, to see whether the government wanted to patent the >idea. If it wasn't strictly mission related, chances are the government >wasn't interested. Then, if sufficiently interested, the inventor had to >option of requesting that he be allowed to patent same as in individual. >Given the urge to publish, the invention usually had been disclosed in the >open literature early in the process. The government then had a choice: >allow the individual to patent, or allow the patent to revert into the publc >domain, by delaying any decision until 12 months after the disclosure. I >remember one case, the "Higgins Ion Exchange Column," where the government >allowed Higgins to patent, which he did. Shortly thereafter he left the >employ of the government contractor and developed a profitable business >marketing his exchange column. If this "solid catalyst" item is as important >as it appears to be, the contractor lab could be faced with losing a good >man, as in the case of Higgins, if they allow the inventor to patent the >solid catalyst invention. I suggest, get in touch with the inventor, offer >him a joint venture, and support him in whatever way possible. The invention >needs to be patented, because whatever belongs to everyone really belongs to >noone. Unless a proprietary position can be developed, I believe there would >be little possibility to develop the necessary funding to get this technology >into the marketplace. But, given the state of the art that is being >developed here, together, with a proprietary position with this patent -- >;who knows what could result? > . > > >[Non-text portions of this message have been removed] > > > >Biofuel at Journey to Forever: >http://journeytoforever.org/biofuel.html >Please do NOT send "unsubscribe" messages to the list address. >To unsubscribe, send an email to: >[EMAIL PROTECTED] > >Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/ Biofuel at Journey to Forever: http://journeytoforever.org/biofuel.html Please do NOT send "unsubscribe" messages to the list address. To unsubscribe, send an email to: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
