Alternative energy and the Automobile Industry

[Case Closed]

[ QUOTE ]
As someone who has their dad actually working on hybrids in the automobile industry, I find this argument hilarious. Ford, GM and Chrysler are scrambling to make more efficient and economical cars, if an viable electric car (or whatever kind of alt fuel car) existed, they'd be slitting throats for it.

[/ QUOTE ]
If only one has ever existed....

[pvn]

[ QUOTE ]
Mark,

[ QUOTE ]
The profit motive works, if the electric car has a viable market someone will direct capital towards that cause.

[/ QUOTE ]

It does, as proven by the Rav 4 EV. Electric cars would be in production if the patents on the battery technology required to make them practical were not controlled by Chevron. Market failure.

[/ QUOTE ]

Uh, how does the fact that PATENTS - which are a GOVERNMENT-GRANTED MONOPOLY - are preventing an outcome that you believe would occur without them constitute a MARKET failure???

[TomVeil]

Hopefully one of you guys can answer:

If there were no patents, how would you protect your technology?

[ikestoys]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
As someone who has their dad actually working on hybrids in the automobile industry, I find this argument hilarious. Ford, GM and Chrysler are scrambling to make more efficient and economical cars, if an viable electric car (or whatever kind of alt fuel car) existed, they'd be slitting throats for it.

[/ QUOTE ]
If only one has ever existed....


[/ QUOTE ]

Whats the name of this car?
Whats its range?
When was it first built?

[pvn]

[ QUOTE ]
Hopefully one of you guys can answer:

If there were no patents, how would you protect your technology?

[/ QUOTE ]

There's a whole lotta question begging there. If you're really interested in bringing this topic up again, feel free to start an OP (or search around and bump one of the existing threads).

[Mark1808]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Mark,

[ QUOTE ]
The profit motive works, if the electric car has a viable market someone will direct capital towards that cause.

[/ QUOTE ]

It does, as proven by the Rav 4 EV. Electric cars would be in production if the patents on the battery technology required to make them practical were not controlled by Chevron. Market failure.

[/ QUOTE ]

We have a Department of Justice that has gone after many company's on anti trust grounds. Do you think Chevron has cornered the electric battery market and squashed it so they can sell more oil? If this is the case then I believe this would be an anti trust violation and you should report it to the DOJ.

[/ QUOTE ]

They have not 'cornered the market', they're sitting on patents for a specific type of battery that would make electric vehicles practical. This has nothing to do with anti-trust laws afaik.

[/ QUOTE ]

You believe a corporations property belongs to the public? I don't. That patent was available to anyone with the know how to develop it.

If Chevron has a patent on an electric battery that will obsolete oil I think they would run with the idea as it would be very profitable. Their aim is making money not saving oil.

[TomCollins]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Mark,

[ QUOTE ]
The profit motive works, if the electric car has a viable market someone will direct capital towards that cause.

[/ QUOTE ]

It does, as proven by the Rav 4 EV. Electric cars would be in production if the patents on the battery technology required to make them practical were not controlled by Chevron. Market failure.

[/ QUOTE ]

We have a Department of Justice that has gone after many company's on anti trust grounds. Do you think Chevron has cornered the electric battery market and squashed it so they can sell more oil? If this is the case then I believe this would be an anti trust violation and you should report it to the DOJ.

[/ QUOTE ]

They have not 'cornered the market', they're sitting on patents for a specific type of battery that would make electric vehicles practical. This has nothing to do with anti-trust laws afaik.

[/ QUOTE ]

You believe a corporations property belongs to the public? I don't. That patent was available to anyone with the know how to develop it.

If Chevron has a patent on an electric battery that will obsolete oil I think they would run with the idea as it would be very profitable. Their aim is making money not saving oil.

[/ QUOTE ]

Except if you develop the same thing on your own, you are violating the patent.

[Mark1808]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Mark,

[ QUOTE ]
The profit motive works, if the electric car has a viable market someone will direct capital towards that cause.

[/ QUOTE ]

It does, as proven by the Rav 4 EV. Electric cars would be in production if the patents on the battery technology required to make them practical were not controlled by Chevron. Market failure.

[/ QUOTE ]

We have a Department of Justice that has gone after many company's on anti trust grounds. Do you think Chevron has cornered the electric battery market and squashed it so they can sell more oil? If this is the case then I believe this would be an anti trust violation and you should report it to the DOJ.

[/ QUOTE ]

They have not 'cornered the market', they're sitting on patents for a specific type of battery that would make electric vehicles practical. This has nothing to do with anti-trust laws afaik.

[/ QUOTE ]

You believe a corporations property belongs to the public? I don't. That patent was available to anyone with the know how to develop it.

If Chevron has a patent on an electric battery that will obsolete oil I think they would run with the idea as it would be very profitable. Their aim is making money not saving oil.

[/ QUOTE ]

Except if you develop the same thing on your own, you are violating the patent.

[/ QUOTE ]

Anyone else could have acquired those patents before Chevron. At any rate they are set to expire in 2014 and several companies are working on EV's. It also seems like the Metal Halide patents owned by Chevron are not as promosing as Lithium Ion as outlined in this quote:

It would seem that most technical people tend to look beyond the patent controversy surrounding NiMH batteries. Whether they look to Li-Ion, bipolar NiMH or any other battery design, their emphasis is on working with the batteries that best suit the requirements for an electric vehicle. While most “techies” admit that standard NiMH batteries covered by the Cobasys patents work acceptably well in PHEVs, their creative energy tends to be focused on Li-Ion batteries and other chemistries which can store more energy in much smaller packages.

[BCPVP]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
3. GM decided that it would not be profitable to enter the electric car market in spite of what appeared to be a market they could make profit off of.

[/ QUOTE ]
On what do you base this?

[/ QUOTE ]
I base this on just my observations. Which I am sure could be way off. It just seemed like they had ample reason to go forth with this product. Or at the very least sell the available models to people. The technology was growing at a very fast rate and still is today. When they made the car available to lease they only had a limited number and they received tons of requests to lease the car without a reasonable marketing plan. Also another positive for this car was that they had marque celebrities going around giving free endorsements of their automobile. It seemed as though things were set up for possible success. Although I would be willing to concede this point if more solid information was available that said GM had no shot at making a profit with this car.

[/ QUOTE ]
Something convinced GM not to run with the car at the time. Unless you're privy to the cost-benefit analysis that is probably only available to senior people at GM, there's not much reason to believe that the EV1 would have been a profitable car, or at least one profitable enough for GM's shareholders. And if you read the link I posted earlier, it's not just a matter of selling the cars and calling it even. GM would be required to provide parts and service for the cars which costs them even more money as well as potential liability for the customers modifying the cars in ways that GM hadn't anticipated.

[Luxoris]

[ QUOTE ]
Hopefully one of you guys can answer:

If there were no patents, how would you protect your technology?

[/ QUOTE ]

Answer: a maze of individual contracts between inventor/manufacturer/consumer enforced by some hired contract enforcer and adjudicated by some dispute resolution organization.

I.e., nothing that could possibly work IRL.