Keith Nagel wrote: > The examples you gave are more applicable to reasonably well developed > technology than to CF. It's more applicable to such > things as the internet, space travel, and oddly enough, hot fusion.
That's true. CF has the additional heavy disadvantages that people do not believe it exists, and it is difficult to reproduce. > I would only add to this that I would > not bother to approach the VC with a proposal for cold fusion, for > the simple reason that you cannot receive patent protection. This is a serious problem, but it may be somewhat exaggerated. As far as I know, von Neumann computer architecture was never patented, and it was specific enough that it might have been. It is not like a force of nature or a mathematical algorithm. It is the core technology for computers, and all computers still use it in a recognizable form, just as all piston ICE still use the basic techniques. (Don't they still all use the Otto cycle?) Even though the core technology of the computer was not patented, companies still found ways to make intellectual property and profits with computers during the 1950s and '60s. The core was not patented but there was plenty of room for intellectual property in the peripherals, such as a specific type of ALU or hard disk. With CF this would be something like the specific alloy, or the configuration of the cell, or the heat sink, thermoelectric device, or what-have-you. It seems to there is plenty of room to innovate within the basic techniq! ue of forming a hydride. I will grant, the function of a computer is more complex than that of a CF device, and computers may have more ramifications likely to give rise to intellectual property. - Jed
